December 30, 2017
Sir, with respect to Lucy Kellaway’s "End of Term Diary” (December 23), David Parker writes: “It’s the teacher’s job to facilitate and motivate. Show students the beauty of things. And, teach by the Socratic method. Ask a question. If the student doesn’t understand, ask another question. Keeping asking. When they understand, they’ve learned” “Teach by the Socratic method — keep asking” December 30.
I have tried to apply the Socratic method during years trying to make Financial Times understand the mistakes of risk weighted capital requirements for banks. Among the questions:
Why do regulators require banks to hold more capital against what has been made innocous by being perceived as risky, than against what has become dangerous by being perceived as very safe?
Why did regulators not define the purpose of banks before regulating these?
Why did bankers use as input for their risk weighted capital requirements for banks the intrinsic risks of bank assets and not the risk of those assets for the banks?
Why do regulators not understand that allowing banks to leverage differently with different assets will distort the allocation of bank credit? And, if they understood that, who gave them the right to distort? Etc.
But FT shows no interest in these questions… so I have to find another method… any idea Lucy Kellaway?
@PerKurowski