Degrowth and downsizing are family

Sir, Soumaya Keynes in “What’s wrong with ‘degrowth’ research?”, FT September 20, mentions: “A… gap is research look­ing into ways of get­ting people on board with rad­ical eco­nomic change.”

I’m in the midst of a major downsizing project. From a large home to some much smaller without stairs apartments in other countries. That includes, among others, having to decide on what to do with monstrous amounts of very dear memorabilia; and foremost with what now evidences to be a life-long purchasing compulsion; put on steroids with the help of wife and daughters.

I’m certain that research on what a thousand of downsizers randomly selected did, and felt while doing it; assisted by some dozens of decluttering and downsizing consultants, would in so many ways immensely advance ‘degrowth’ research.

Sir, IKEA has recently started a program called “Second hand - let old furniture find new homes”. That sure sounds like growth by degrowth to me.

PS. What allowed the abundance of purchase power that propelled a purchasing compulsion? Among others, house prices inflated by bank regulations.

https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2018/12/affordable-homes-or-investment-assets.html

Excessively low interest rates, and excessively low capital requirement for banks, put house prices on steroids.

Sir, Edward Ballsdon warns about how “excessively low interest rates fuelled real estate booms built on debt.” “Once-virtuous circle has turned vicious” May 31.

That is true, but in much those excessively low interest rates are the direct result of excessively low capital requirement for banks against residential mortgages.

Had banks needed to hold as much capital as they are required to when lending to entrepreneurs, houses would not have morphed so clearly from being homes into being investment assets.

@PerKurowski

Three questions for Angus Deaton, the chair of The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ wide-ranging review of inequalities in UK

Sir, I refer to Angus Deaton’s “Inequality in America offers lessons for Britain” May 15.

I have three questions for him:

Regulatory subsidized credit for the purchase of houses, which has helped morph houses from being homes into investment assets, how much increased inequality has that caused between those who own houses and those who do not?

The increased benefits for those who have jobs, how much increased inequality has that caused when compared to those without jobs?

The risk weighted capital requirements for banks, which very much favors the financing of the “safer” present over the riskier future, how much inequality is it producing between current and future generations?

PS. Decreed inequality

@PerKurowski

We might not end up homeless, but homes might be the only thing we end up with… and so how do we eat homes?

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes “Central banks can’t create growth by themselves. They can only funnel money around.” “What Trump gets right” April 15.

Indeed, but the way they funnel money around can also promote obese growth, and impede muscular and sustainable growth.

If you fill a financial irrigation system with huge amounts of liquidity, QEs, and ultra low interest rates, and some of its most important canals, like the financing of entrepreneurs are, because you consider these as risky, blocked with high risk weighted bank capital requirements, there’s no doubt bad things will happen. Among other, that those channels relatively wider because they’re perceived “safer”, like sovereign and the purchase of houses, will get dangerously much credit.

Sir, just consider the role of so much the credit for the purchase of houses has had in turning houses from being homes into being investment assets. I have not done the calculations but were we to deduct from the assets of the 99% less wealthy the worth of their houses, I am sure that we would be horrified about what little savings we would find. We might not end up homeless, but homes might be the only thing we end up with… and how do you eat a home?

@PerKurowski

The “having just enough” opens the door for a discussion on relevant and irrelevant inequalities

Sir, I refer to Janan Ganesh’s “The holy grail of having just enough” April 6.

It is a great article, though because of its honest shadings, those who want to see all in black or white will criticize it. But its real importance could be in helping to put the finger on the need to redefine all discussions and measuring of inequality, by allowing these to focus much more on the relevant existing inequalities, and much less on the irrelevant inequalities.

That some “filthy rich” has decided to use his purchase power to buy a yacht, something which makes yacht builders happy, or to contract a yacht crew, something that gives those crew members a job, or freeze $450m of it in a painting, such as Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi, which should make the one who sold him that painting very happy, does not make me feel one iota unequal to him. But, I can perfectly understand that the fact I own a house, a car and a reasonable amount of money, can make many owning much less feel unequal to me, and many who have nothing feel unequal to all.

And clearly those without a job must feel unequal to those with a job… and in that case unequal to the yacht crew, not unequal to the yacht owner.

In these days when redistribution and polarization profiteers seeding so much hate and envy, at zero marginal costs, create so much odious societal divisions, it behooves us to, as a minimum minimorum, make sure those divisions are in reference to something real and relevant, and not just fake divisions that can lead to absolutely nothing good.

PS. My generous feelings towards what the “filthy rich” own, are of course based on that they have obtained all that wealth in legal and decent ways.

Bank regulations placed populist socialism on steroids, but neo-class-wars represent challenges

Sir, David McWilliams writes:“Mr Bernanke’s unorthodox “cash for trash” scheme, otherwise known as quantitative easing, drove up asset prices, left baby boomers comfortable, but the millennials with a fragile stake in the society they are supposed to build… spawning a new generation of socialists. Soaring asset prices, particularly property prices, drive a wedge between those who depend on wages for their income and those who depend on rents and dividends “‘Cash for trash’ was the father of millennial socialism”, March 2.

I agree. With QEs central banks renounced to all possible cleansing benefits a hard landing could provide, and decided to kick the can forward. But that is not the whole story. 

By distorting the allocation of bank credit with risk weighted capital requirements, which much favored the “safer” present/properties over the riskier future/ventures, it was de facto bank regulators who caused the crisis.

As a brief background, after Basel II in 2004, for all European banks and for US investment banks, the following were the standardized allowed leverages for banks: a) for loans to sovereigns rated AAA-AA the sky was the limit; b) 62.5 times when holding AAA rated securities; c) 62.5 times when holding any asset, no matter how risky, if it had a default guarantee issued by an AAA rated entity, like AIG; d) 35.7 times when holding residential mortgages and e) 12.5 times when lending to unrated entrepreneurs or SMEs.

The 2008 crisis was caused, exclusively, by excessive bank exposures to assets perceived as safe, and that could be held against the least of capital. In US and Europe it was the b, c, d and e assets, and a bit later in Europe, sovereigns, like Greece, that not withstanding it did not have an AAA rating, not withstanding it was taking on debt in euros, which de facto is not their domestic printable one, was assigned by EU authorities a risk weight of 0%.

After the crisis, with Basel III, some new capital regulations were introduced, notoriously a minimum leverage ratio, but the distortions produced by the risk weighted capital requirements are still alive and kicking a lot on the margin, there were it means the most.

As a consequence the can has been kicked forward in precisely the same wrong direction from where it came. Therefore, the day it begins to roll back on us, it could be so much worse.

McWilliams opines: “One battle ground for the new politics is the urban property market”. Indeed, there is a de facto class war going on between those who want their houses to be great investment assets too, and those who simply want to afford to own a home. Just as there is a de facto new class war between those who want higher minimum wages and those unemployed who want any job.

For the time being the old and new socialists on the scene have not been forced to take sides in these wars, as they still gather that going after the filthy rich will suffice to become elected. But the more voters realize that what the wealthy have is not money but assets, and that converting those assets into redistributable money can have serious unexpected consequences for the value of assets, some of which could trickle down on every one… that day redistribution driven populism will lose some power.

Hear this question: “Do you want us young to afford houses or do you want our parents’ houses to be worth more? Make up you mind, you cannot serve both.”

@PerKurowski

The world’s banking systems are dangerously fragile, courtesy of inept and statist regulators.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “Should we be concerned about the state of the world economy? Yes: it always makes sense to be concerned. That does not mean something is sure to go badly wrong in the near future… It is the political and policy instability, combined with the exhaustion of safe options for credit expansion, that would make handling even a limited and natural short-term slowdown potentially so tricky.” “Why the world economy feels so fragile” January 9.

Sir, as you know because of the thousands of letter I have obsessively written to you on this subject, which you have equally obsessively ignored, I am absolutely sure something has been going very badly for a long time, and will explode… perhaps the sooner the better.

In April 2003, as an Executive Director of the World Bank, in a board meeting I said, "A mixture of thousand solutions, many of them inadequate, may lead to a flexible world that can bend with the storms. A world obsessed with Best Practices may calcify its structure and break with any small wind."

Likewise, a world obsessed with allowing banks to leverage their capital immensely only because something is perceived or decreed as safe, is doomed to overload what’s “safe” way too much with debt, while, relative to that, financing what’s “risky” way too little. That will sure exhaust, sooner or later, any "safe options for credit expansion". That makes for a hell of a fragile bank system. 

Wolf writes, “The long-term credit cycle reached its denouement in the disastrous financial crisis of 2007-08.” 

That crisis was solely caused by excessive exposures to what was perceived as safe, mortgages to residences and AAA rated securities, against which investment banks in the US and all banks in Europe had to hold little capital. Did regulators wake up and change their risk weighted capital requirements, which are so idiotically based on the idea that what’s perceive as risky is more dangerous to our banking system than what’s perceived as safe? No! No real denouement there.

And then Greece exploded in 2009, and the fact that statist EU authorities had assigned all Eurozone sovereigns a risk weight of 0%, which allowed EU banks to lend to Greece against no capital requirement at all, which clearly doomed the not so well managed Greece to excessive indebtedness, does not even appear listed among the causes for its tragedy. No denouement there either. EU sovereigns are still risk-weighted 0%.

Sir, just look at houses. Easy financing made available by very low capital requirements turned what used to be homes into investment assets. All this while entrepreneurs, those who could create the jobs so that house owners can afford to service their mortgages and pay the utilities, were denied credit or charged higher interest rates, because of higher bank capital requirements. Just you wait till that easy financing stream stops and too many house owners wish to convert their houses into main-street-purchase capacity again. It's going to be hell.

@PerKurowski

There's a new class war brewing, that between employed and unemployed.

Sarah O’Connor, discussing the challenges of the Gig economy writes, “Offering employment benefits to drivers might well help to snap up the best workers and hang on to them. But if customers were not to shoulder the cost, investors would have to.”“Uber and Lyft’s valuations expose the gig economy to fresh scrutiny” January 2.

Sir, to that we must add that if the investors were neither willing to shoulder that cost, then the gig workers would have to do so, or risk losing their job opportunities.

That conundrum illustrates clearly the need for an unconditional universal basic income. Increasing minimum wages or offering other kind of benefits only raises the bar at which jobs can be created, while an UBI works like a step stool making it easier for anyone to reach up to whatever jobs are available.

Sarah O’Connor also mentions how a collective agreement was negotiated between a Danish gig economy company and a union. Great, but let us not forget that in the brewing class-war between employed and unemployed, the unions only represent the employed… and we do need decent and worthy unemployments too, before social order breaks down.

PS. There's another not yet sufficiently recognized neo-class-war too. That between those who have houses as investment assets and those who want houses as homes.

@PerKurowski

The dangers of the unknown unknowns are greater than those of the known unknowns.

Sir, Martin Wolf asks, “Is it possible to know the state of the UK public finances under present conditions?” He answers “No. The unknowns are too great.” “Some ‘known unknowns’ about the UK economy”, October 19.

Indeed, but to me, the most dangerous unknowns for the UK, and for much of the rest of the world, are the “unknown” unknowns. 

Like how much of the savings for the future, of those who are the least able to manage major upheavals, has been invested in houses; those homes that because of so much preferential finance increased their prices so much, that they were turned into also being risky investment assets?

Houses are good investments… until too many want to convert them simultaneously into main-street purchasing capacity.

Like how much of the illusion of public debt sustainability is solely the result of preferential regulations, like the Basel Accord of 1988 decreeing a 0% risk weight to sovereigns and a 100% risk weight to citizens?

Any sector given more preferential access to credit than other is doomed to unsustainable debt… just like Greece was doomed by the 0% risk weight some yet unknown EU authorities awarded it.

Sir, when compared to these in general unknown unknowns, the known unknowns, like Brexit or trade wars, are just peanuts. 

@PerKurowski

What has most made houses unaffordable for many is having made these artificially affordable for many.

Sir, John Dizard quotes and comments Robert Dietz, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders with: “Affordability is at a 10-year low.” It is not just the tariff-driven double-digit rise in the cost of wood. “We have suffered labour shortages for the past [few]years. Now the builders say that [land approved for building] is low.” “Bad news for housebuilding recovery as America loses its free lunch from world”, October 13.

That might bear some influence bit let us be very clear, what has most made houses unaffordable for many has been all that preferential financing to make house purchases affordable to many, which turned homes into investment assets and increased the prices of houses and the wealth of those who own houses.

For example, should banks have to hold the same capital against “safe” residential mortgages that they need to hold against loans to “risky” entrepreneurs house prices would be much lower...(PS. But there surely would be more jobs to help allow the purchase of houses at its lower prices)

Sir, a monstrous real estate crisis is being fabricated by regulators who can’t come to grips with the simple fact of life that if you blow too much credit into a market, you will create a bubble that, sooner or later, will explode L

@PerKurowski

Sheer regulatory stupidity and statism caused the financial crisis. But that shall not be admitted!

Sir, Lord Adair Turner writes: “The financial crisis began because of dangerous features within the financial system itself. Massively leveraged investment banks engaged in socially useless trading of huge volumes of complex credit securities and derivatives… The excessive risk-taking was allowed by bad regulation justified by flawed economic theory.” “Banks are safer but debt remains a danger” September 12.

Turner, like all other involved, does just not tell it like it is! 

The “massively leveraged investments of banks” were caused, 100%, by the simple fact that regulators allowed for these.

The “socially useless” in complex securities were mortgages awarded to poorer house buyers in the US, the subprime sector. 

The “excessive risk-taking” was in fact an excessive risk aversion that led to the excessive build up of bank exposures to what was considered, decreed, or concocted as safe. 

Yes Turner mentions “bad regulation justified by flawed economic theory”, but there was none of that, there was only sheer stupidity. Like when regulators allow banks to leverage 62.5 times only because a human fallible credit rating agency has assigned it an AAA to AA rating.

And Sir, assigning a 0% risk weights to the sovereign, like to Greece is not based one iota on economic theory but all on flawed statist ideology.

Turner is right though when he writes that the “economic growth has been anaemic despite massive policy stimulus… “That poor performance reflects… inadequate capital regulation.”

Indeed, the distortions that the risk weighted capital requirements produced in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy that have not even been admitted much less were eliminated. “Debt burdens shifting around the world economy from private to public sectors” are just one symptom of those distortions. 

In fact by having raised the floor of bank capital requirements with leverage ratios, on the margins, the roof, the distortions of credit risk weighted capital requirements could be worse than ever.

Turner consoles us with “A deep economic recession, made worse by a large debt overhang, could occur even if not a single big bank went bankrupt or needed to be rescued with public money.”

Not true a deep economic recession, a dysfunctional economy is as dangerous as can be for the banks and for us. That is why the most important question that regulators need to answer before regulating banks is: what is the purpose of banks. Except for being safe mattresses to stack away cash there is not on word on this in the whole immense Basel Committee compendium on rules.

“The increasing role of real estate in modern economies is also crucial.” That is because, by means of giving house purchase access to credit on preferential conditions, a house is no longer just a home it has also become an investment asset. The day houses return to being home only it is going to hurt, a lot. 

“Rising inequality”… with capital requirements that favor the “safer” present over the riskier future, how could that be avoided?

PS. And Sir, you know it, FT has in many ways been complicit in the cover up of our mistakes stories peddled by regulators and their colleagues.

@PerKurowski

Competition among banks is healthy for all, except when banks are allowed to compete on stratospheric capital leveraged heights.

Sir, Nicholas Megaw reports on some natural concerns derived from the fact that “Britain’s banks and building societies are loosening lending standards and cutting fees to maintain growth, as competition and a weakening housing market squeeze profit margins.” “UK banks loosen mortgage standards to maintain growth” August 26.

Competition among banks is always good, what were we borrowers to do without it? If as a result, some banks fail, so be it, and in fact that is quite necessary for the long-term health of the system. 

But when competition occurs where regulators allows too much leverage, because they also perceive it as very safe, then the very high exposures to the same class of assets, by many banks, can really explode and endanger the bank system.

So in conclusion, welcome the lowering of lending standards for loans to entrepreneurs that bank competition can bring about; but the capital requirements for banks when financing residential mortgages need to be increased, in order to make competition less dangerous. 

PS. Here is the somewhat extensive aide memoire on some of the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

@PerKurowski

Odiously inept bank regulators consider ex ante that the entrepreneurs are less worthy of credit than house buyers

Sir, Daniel Davies discussing the work-outs of small business failures seemingly based on what some bad apples did, writes that “unpleasant realities [are swept] into grubby corners so that the banking system can look clean and efficient” “The finance industry’s Achilles heel”, June 27.

Sincerely, as one who has been proudly involved as a consultant in many workouts of all types for more than two decades in Venezuela, before the failure of that nation, I must say that I do not identify much with what Davies writes. For instance what’s wrong with that when real estate loans are renegotiated there is often a “change of valuation basis”? It would surely be more of an Achilles heel for the finance industry, if its valuation of assets did not change with changing circumstances.

Davies wants us to “Consider what happens when an entrepreneur is classified as a “distressed borrower” rather than a “start-up founder”… at that point, the person has been put into a category in which their word is not as good as other people’s.” 

But classifying an entrepreneur ex post, quite naturally, as a distressed borrower, cannot be remotely as bad as when regulators, ex ante, by allowing banks to leverage more when financing “safe” houses than when financing “risky” entrepreneurs are, de facto, saying that the word of an entrepreneur is worth less than that of house buyers. 

If there has been any sweeping of unpleasant realities into grubby corners, that is the role the regulators, with their foolishly risk adverse risk weighted capital requirements, have played in putting bank crisis and economic stagnation on steroids. Had for instance any credit rating agency assigned a 0% risk to Greece and with that doomed that country to a tragic over indebtedness, it would probably be hauled in front of judge… but there are the regulators still regulating as if they had done nothing.

And Sir, you know I think FT has quite shamefully helped the regulators with much of that sweeping.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

@PerKurowski

The risk weighted capital requirements doomed our banks to impotence, and our economies to obesity.

Sir, I would like to make some of my own observations on two terms of those exposed by Robert Shrimsley in “Menopause, impotence and other useful economic terms” May 18.

Shrimsley writes: “Impotence: An underperforming economy is distressing for all parties. This kind of dysfunction can be either structural or cyclical or psychological”. 

Indeed but it can also be physiological. When the Basel Committee introduced risk weighted capital requirements for banks they impeded banks from feeling any attraction to what’s perceived as risky, like the entrepreneurs. That has our banks only masturbating by lending to what’s “safe”, like houses and sovereigns… and all the Viagra in the world won’t help. Our only salvation lies in a delicate intervention that removes this regulatory object that causes this ED; so that banks can, little by little, throwing out the equity minimizers and reincorporating some savvy loan officers, learn again to perform their societal duties.

Shrimsley writes: “Obesity: This is an economy…which has given up going to the gym and is too heavily dependent on house price inflation and junk commodities like lightly regulated financial products” 

When regulators told banks that if they only stayed away from what is perceived as risky, what bankers don’t like, like risky entrepreneurs and broccoli; and went for what’s safe, what bankers love, like residential mortgages and ice cream, then they would be rewarded with the chocolate cake of higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity…they guaranteed the economy to become obese.

@PerKurowski

Sweden got to be an economic powerhouse with its banks financing “risky” entrepreneurs, not by these financing “safer” houses.

Sir, Patrick Jenkins reports: “Nordea has a core equity capital ratio of close to 20 per cent, double that of some European rivals. It can expect lesser capital demands from the ECB” “Nordic noir: the outlook darkens for Sweden’s banks” May 1.

Let us suppose that Nordea has only Basel II’s 35% risk weighted residential mortgages on its books. Then, a 20 percent capital ratio, would translate as having Nordea 7% in equity against all its assets meaning it is leveraged 14.2 times to 1.

So when we then read that in Sweden “house prices have declined 10 per cent since last summer, although in prime Stockholm the slump has been closer to 20 per cent” of course that should be enough to besides giving “Jitters about the sustainability of property prices” causing jitters about its banking sector.

I have a close relation to Sweden in that not only was my mother Swedish but I also spend my most formative years, high school and university there. So it saddens me to see what is happening. Sweden that got to be so strong by its banks financing “risky” entrepreneurs is now getting weaker by its banks mostly financing “safer” assets, like mortgages.

“Sweden’s Financial Supervisory Authority, late last year, proposed Sweden’s Financial rules [that] would mean those taking out new home loans of more than 4.5 times their salary would have to pay off an extra 1 per cent of their mortgage annually.” Are we to be impressed with that?

Stefan Ingves the Governor of Sveriges Riksbank has since 2011 been the Chairman of the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision. Why has he not proposed to stop distorting the banks allocation of credit, by requiring these to hold the same capital when extracting value and placing a reverse mortgage on the “safer” present economy, than when financing the riskier future, that the young Swedes need and deserve is financed?

In Swedish churches there was (is) a psalm (#288) that prays for: “God make us daring”. It would seem Mr Ingves never heard less sang it. 

Will Davos 2018, again ignore the financial weapon of mass destruction concocted by the Basel Committee populists?

Sir, Gillian Tett when commenting the concerns that will be expressed at the 2018 Davos meetings writes “The biggest perceived danger of 2018, in terms of impact, is that somebody uses weapons of mass destruction”, Holy moly! and ends with: “keep a close eye on what Davos is not worrying about enough this year: that pesky matter of global finance, particularly in places such as China.” “Populist swing alarms financial titans” January 19.

My concern though is that the technocratic and hubristic populism, proclaimed by the Basel Committee will again not be denounced in Davos, perhaps because doing so might be deemed ungentlemanly or ungentlewomanly behavior in such fine surroundings.

I refer of course to their promise that distorting bank credit with risk weighted capital requirements for banks will make our banks safer.

Higher capital requirements for what’s “risky”, has caused among other that millions of entrepreneurs, those on which so much of our economic future depends, have seen their credit applications rejected or not even received by banks.

Lower capital requirements for what’s “safe”, has among other, helped to fuel house prices which has overloaded that sector with mortgages that, within a future subprime economy, seem impossible to service.

And let’s not even talk about what the 0% risk weight awarded to sovereigns has done in terms of statism and of blurring the risk free rates.

Sir, no doubt about it, the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, is a weapon of financial mass destruction.

Did we not see it explode with AAA rated securities that banks were allowed to leverage 62.5 times with?

Did we not see it explode in Greece with sovereign debt that European regulators allowed their banks to hold against no capital at all?

If a regulator is incapable to provide a clear answer to: “Why do you want banks to hold more capital against what has been made innocous by being perceived as risky, than against what is dangerous because it is perceived as safe?” should he not be fired Sir?

http://theaaa-bomb.blogspot.com

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

PS. On the same page Philip Stephens writes:” The World Economic Forum and the Davos crowd pride themselves on their globalism has set itself the fearsome task of mapping “a shared future in a fractured world”. “Trump, Davos and the special relationship”. The risk weighted capital requirements, which favor refinancing of the “safer” present over financing the “riskier” future, is fracturing the world and causing the future to produce less and less of what could be shared.

@PerKurowski

The risk weighted capital requirements for banks close way too many development doors.

Sir, Martin Wolf referring to the World Bank’s latest Global Economic Prospects writes: “A slowdown in the potential rate of growth is affecting many developing countries. This is not only the result of demographic change, but also of a weakening in productivity growth. They need to tackle this urgently.” “Recovery is a chance for the emerging world” January 17.

Sir, during my two years as an Executive Director of the World Bank, and with respect to the Basel Committees’ bank regulations, I continuously argued for the need to maintain “an adequate equilibrium between risk-avoidance and the risk-taking needed to sustain growth.”

At the High level Dialogue on Financing for developing I presented a document titled “Are Basel bank regulations good for development?” which I answered with a clear NO!

In 2009 Martin Wolf, in his Economic Forum allowed me to publish “Free us from the imprudent risk aversion and give us some prudent risk-taking”.

And in hundreds sites more, among other with over 2600 letters to FT, I have argued about the horrible mistakes of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks present, not just for developing countries but also for developed ones.

The distortion these produce in the allocation of bank credit in favor or what is perceived or decreed as safe, sovereigns, AAA rated and mortgages, has impeded millions of “risky” entrepreneurs around the world to gain access to bank credit, thereby hindering much new productivity.

And those regulations will not bring us stability, much the contrary.

So the first thing to do to allow what Wolf wants, “greater entrepreneurial effort, more competition, higher investment and faster improvements in productivity”, is the elimination of risk weighted capital requirements for banks.” But Martin Wolf will most probably not agree, because how could he?

Sir, and as I have told you umpteenth times those regulations will not bring us stability, much the contrary.

PS. Look for instance at houses. What would the price of a house be if there was no financing available to purchase these? Of the current price of houses how much is represented by the intrinsic value of the house, and how much is a reflection of all one-way-or-another subsidized financing allocated to that sector? The sad truth is that our society has ended up financing the financing of houses. When all that low risk weighted mortgaging comes home to roost in a subprime unproductive economy, it will be hellish.

@PerKurowski

Many children incapable of helping their parents during their old days will one day rightly blame our bank regulators’ insane risk aversion for that

Sir, Bronwen Maddox writes about the possible need to “force more people to use the equity in their houses to pay for care” and that “In these discussions, how to tax inheritance has attracted more political attention, not least because the prescriptions are simpler and chime with the debate about inequality”, “An ageing population and the end of inheritance” December 23.

Are the prescriptions for taxing inheritance really simpler than using your assets to pay for some of your own services? I don’t think so. To pay for your own social care services with assets of your own, fits perfectly with the standard norms and realities of our economy and our society. But, eroding the right to bequeath wealth to your children constitutes a direct attack on one of the most important drivers of the economy that could have dangerous consequences for all.

One of the least studied, or clearer yet conveniently ignored topics, is what could happen if you redistribute wealth, be it by wealth or inheritance taxes; not only in terms of what I consider is its very limited potential to provide temporal relief to poverty or inequality, but also in terms of how it could negatively affect the future economy. The lack of such discussions on this has possibly to do with not fitting the agenda of those creating envy and hate in order to achieve their own particular small and temporary goals.

Let me briefly hint at the following:

If a $450 million Leonardo Da Vinci “Salvator Mundi” had to be sold at the death of his owner to pay for all inheritance taxes it will not fetch $450 million. This because who would feel stimulated to pay a sort of voluntary tax, freezing that amount of purchase power on a wall or in a storage room, if that painting cannot be bequeathed to heirs, and just be taken away upon death?

And what would happen to all private owned houses and apartments, if upon the death of their owners who made sacrifices paying for these, they would just fall into a government pool of houses, with their users to be nominated by some few house redistributionists? What would happen to the incentives to save in order to buy, maintain and make homes beautiful?

And, if all shares and bonds were taxed to be placed in a mutual government pot… would that not signify heaven for statism fanatics and redistribution profiteers, and hell for all the rest of our children and grandchildren?

Sir, of course “the dream of bequeathing assets to the next generation is fading in the face of social care costs” that results from having more elder and fewer younger. But the lesser earnings of the young also cause that fading. Those regulators who with their insane capital requirements had banks abandoning financing the “risky” future, in favor of refinancing the “safer” past and present, will not be kindly remembered by the too many children incapable to take care of their parents’ old days.

PS. What is a reverse mortgage but a way to squeeze the most out of the present for the present? Whether it is done to satisfy an urgent need or only in order to anticipate some unnecessary consumption is not something irrelevant.

@PerKurowski

When banks can leverage more their equity financing “safe” built houses than financing “risky” job creation, too many young are doomed to live unemployed in our basements

Sir, Bill Mendenhall in a letter of December 18, “Lord Turner got there first on productive credit” mentions a report by Jim Pickard “Labour looks at making mortgage lending harder for banks” December 12. Pickard’s report was not in FT’s US edition.

Pickard wrote: “Shadow chancellor John McDonnell is considering making mortgage lending more onerous for banks in an effort to push them to lend more to smaller companies…The proposals were set out in “Financing Investment”, a report commissioned by the Labour leadership and written by GFC Economics.

According to GFC, British banks are “diverting resources” away from vital industries and instead focusing on unproductive lending, such as consumer credit borrowing.

The paper argues that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the BoE’s City regulator, should use existing powers to make banks hold relatively more capital against their mortgage lending. The report’s authors say this would be an “incentive to boost SME lending growth”.

The GFC report also claims that the BoE’s Financial Policy Committee “makes no distinction between unproductive and productive lending” to companies, arguing that the banking sector “should be geared towards stimulating productive investment”.

The report calls for the FPC to use existing powers to vary the risk weights on banks’ exposures to residential property, commercial property and other segments of the economy.

The report acknowledges that such interventions would be seen by critics as risky measures that could “impede the smooth functioning of markets” and distort the efficient allocation of capital. But it warns that “financial stability risks will emerge if an economy loses its competitiveness”.

Sir, you must be aware that this includes much of what I have written to you in thousands of letters, for more than a decades, and that you have decided to ignore.

But, if that report acknowledges that “to vary the risk weights on banks’ exposures to residential property, commercial property and other segments of the economy… would be seen by critics as risky measures that could ‘impede the smooth functioning of markets’’, why does it not then question the distortion the current existing differences in risk weights cause?

Pickard also mentions that the report warn that “financial stability risks will emerge if an economy loses its competitiveness”. No doubt! Banks cannot be the sole triumphant survivors in an economy that is losing strength.

And when now Mendenhall writes that “Lord Turner got there first on productive credit” because in his 2015 book Between Debt and the Devil he pointed out that “the banking sector’s decades-long switch away from lending to businesses towards mortgage lending only serves to inflate asset prices, which leads to property bubbles”, that does not mean that Lord Turner really understood or understands what has happened.

In June 2010, during a conference at the Brooking Institute in Washington DC, I asked Lord Turner “Do you really think the banks will perform better their societal capital allocation role if regulators allow them to have much lower capital requirements when lending to the consolidated sectors than when lending to the developing?

To that Lord Turner (partially) responded: "we try to develop risk weights which are truly related to the underlying risks. And the fact is that on the whole lending to small and medium enterprises does show up as having both a higher expected loss but also a greater variance of loss. And, of course, capital is there to absorb unexpected loss or either variance of loss rather than the expected loss.”

Pure BS! With that Lord Turner evidences he ignores that banks already clear for the higher risks when lending, so that when also clearing for it in the capital, the whole credit allocation process gets distorted… and banks end up lending more to build “safe” downstairs for our children to live in with their parents, and lending less to “risky” entrepreneurs who could get them the jobs to afford buying their own “upstairs” 

No, Lord Turner is just one of those too many regulators that want banks to hold the most capital against what is perceived as risky, while in fact it is when something perceived as safe turns out to be risky, that we would most like that to be the case.

@PerKurowski

If you allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity on mortgage lending than when lending to entrepreneurs, bad things will sure ensue

Sir, Jonathan Eley writes: “in the UK…younger people especially are being priced out of the market while their parents and grandparents benefit from decades of above-inflation rises in home values. The ruling Conservatives, traditionally the party of home ownership, now finds itself shunned by millennial voters frustrated by spiralling housing costs” “Why Budget fix will not repair market” November 21.

And among the long list of factors that has distorted the market in favor of houses Eley includes: “Mortgage securitisation facilitated further growth, as did the Basel II reforms cutting the risk weights applied to real estate. This made mortgage lending less capital-intensive for banks.”

This Sir is one of the very few recognitions, by FT journalists, of the fact that risk weighting the capital requirements for banks distorts the allocation of bank credit.

Indeed, Basel I in 1988 assigned a risk weight of 50% to loans fully secured by mortgage on residential property that is rented or is (or is intended to be) occupied by the borrower, and Basel II reduced that to 35%. Both Basel I and II assigned a risk weight of 100% to loans to unrated SMEs or entrepreneurs.

But the real bottom line significance of “mortgage lending [being] less capital-intensive for banks”, is that banks when being allowed to leverage more with mortgages than with loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs, earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity with mortgages than with loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs, and will therefore finance houses much much more than SMEs and entrepreneurs, than what they would have done in the absence of this distortion.

As I have written to you in many occasion before, this “causes banks to finance the basements where the kids can live with their parents, but not the necessary job creation required for the kids to be able to become themselves parents in the future.”

And the day the young will look up from their IPhones, and understand what has happened, they could/should become very angry with those regulators that so brazenly violated that holy intergenerational social bond Edmund Burke wrote about.

I can almost hear many millennials some years down the road telling (yelling) their parents “You go down to the basement, it’s now our turn to live upstairs!”

Eley also quotes Greg Davies, a behavioural economist with: “People like houses as an investment because they are tangible. They feel they understand them far more than funds or shares or bonds.”

But the real measurement of the worth of any investment happens the moment you want to convert it into current purchase capacity. In this respect people should think about to whom they could sell their house in the future, at its current real prices.

PS. In June 2017 you published a letter by Chris Watling that refers exactly to this, “Blame Basel capital rules for the UK’s house price bonanza”.

What most surprises me is that regulators don’t even acknowledge they distort, much less discuss it… and that the Financial Times refuses to call the regulators out on this… especially since all that distortion is for no stability purpose at all, much the contrary.

It is clear that no matter its motto of “Without fear and without favor”, FT does not have what it takes to for instance ask Mark Carney of BoE and FSB, to explain the reasoning behind Basel II’s meager risk weight of only 20% to the so dangerous AAA rated and its whopping 150% to the so innocous below BB- rated.

@PerKurowski