As long the mistake that caused a crisis gets to be treated as one that shall not be named, it is doomed to become a Groundhog Day event.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes “financial regulation is procyclical: it is loosened when it should be tightened and tightened when it should be loosened. We do, in fact, learn from history — and then we forget”“Why further financial crises are inevitable” March 19.

Yes and no!

Yes, it is procyclical especially when allowing banks to leverage more with those who, thanks to good times are perceived as safer, and much less in bad times with all those that then are perceived as risky, which of course includes many former very safe.

No, we have not learned from history, because there is too many interested in putting a veil on the mistake with the risk weighted capital requirements. And there is too many who do not want to admit they fell for the populist that told them to relax, because they have weighted the risks.

Even though a leverage ratio has been introduced, the following Basel II risk weights that which evidences an absolute lack of understanding of the concept of conditional probabilities have not been changed, and this even after a crisis that exploded in AAA rated territory.

AAA to AA rated = 20%; allowed leverage 62.5 times to 1.

Below BB- rated = 150%; allowed leverage 8.3 times to 1

Also, the distortion the risk weighting creates in the allocation of credit to the real economy is mindboggling. Just consider the following tail risks:

The best, that which perceived as very risky turning out to be very safe.

The worst, that which perceived as very safe turning out to be very risky.

And so the risk weighted capital requirements kills the best and puts the worst on steroids… dooming us to suffer from a weakened economy as well as an especially severe bank crisis, resulting from especially large exposures, to what was especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

Wolf writes: “The bigger the disaster, the longer stiff regulation is likely to last. [But] Over time, regulation degrades, as the forces against it strengthen and those in its favour corrode.” I agree, but I would have to add something to it, namely, the bigger the disaster the more the running away from responsibilities… and accountability. 

@PerKurowski

If the inflation-measured basket used house prices instead of rental costs, the story would be different.

Sir, Rana Foroohar points to “The latest Consumer Price Index figures show that almost all core inflation… was in rent or the owner’s equivalent of rent (up 0.3 per cent) [while] Core goods inflation, meanwhile, was down 0.2 per cent” and argues “that the housing market is once again completely out of sync with the rest of the economy.” “America’s new housing bubble” March 18.

Yes and no! No! “Rent” in much is a laggard response to the price of houses, and so it would be more precise for the arguments made by Foroohar to compare core goods inflation to what is happening to those prices.

Yes! “Hyman Minsky would have had a field day [more precisely many field years] with his Financial Instability Hypothesis that [argues] two kinds of prices — prices for goods and services, and asset prices.”

And yes, Daniel Alpert is correct: “What we have now is a form of inflation that’s never been seen before — it’s all concentrated in housing.”

To explain that with as “something the US Federal Reserve has actually exacerbated (albeit unintentionally) via low interest rates and quantitative easing that boosted housing prices in the very cities where the best paying jobs are located”, is correct but quite incomplete.

If banks needed to hold as much capital against residential mortgages as against for instance loans to entrepreneurs, something that was the case before the Basel Committee got creative, that would be happening much less.

As is, the resulting abundant easy financing when purchasing a house has helped morph houses from being homes into being investment assets. 

PS. In a letter I wrote and that FT published in 2006 (before it stopped doing so) titled “The information Mr Market receives could also be neurotic” I argued:

“Inflation as they, our monetary authorities, know it, is just obtained by looking at a basket of limited consumer goods chosen by bureaucrats and that although they might be highly relevant to the many have-nots, are highly irrelevant to measure the real loss of value of money. 

For instance, who on earth has decided for that the increase in the price of houses is not inflation? And so what should perhaps be argued is that really our monetary authorities have not been so successful fighting inflation as they claim they have been.”

@PerKurowski

High interest rates on sovereign bonds are often just vulgar kickbacks offered by corrupt regimes.

Sir, Jim Sanders correctly points out “Where the money from sovereign bonds goes within developing country governments is rarely, if ever, the subject of reporting in the financial press. Nor does there appear to be a regulatory regime in place to monitor how money raised from bond issues is spent.” “Emerging market bonds are a risky business” March 19.

Of course not, way to often lenders, attracted by profit opportunities, quite on purpose turn a blind eye on that, much preferring the bliss of ignorance. 

Just as an example in May 2017, Goldman Sachs handed over about US$800 million to the notoriously corrupt, criminal and human rights violating government of Venezuela, in order to obtain $2.8billion Venezuelan bonds paying a 12.75% interest rate, which if repaid would provide GS with about a 42% yearly return, 2.000% more than what US pays.

It is clear that when it comes to our sovereigns taking on debt, that perhaps our children will have to repay, we citizens much more than credit ratings need ethic ratings; and a clear definition of what should be considered as odious credits, and the consequences for any credit that ends up qualified as such.

Personally I consider a level of sovereign debt that allows for contracting it in emergencies at reasonable rates, as a strategic asset, which no one should take away from future generations, without overwhelming reasons.

@PerKurowski

In USA, for the patterns of default, differences between states as to “deficiency judgments”, should matter.

Wikipedia: “A deficiency judgment is an unsecured money judgment against a borrower whose mortgage foreclosure sale did not produce sufficient funds to pay the underlying promissory note, or loan, in full.”

Sir, the default patterns Gillian Tett refers to in “Driven to default”, March 14 will, in the USA, of course much depend of in what state the defaults occur, given the great differences in allowing or not “Deficiency Judgments”

Has there been any research on this issue? Not that I know off. But that is not surprising given how the fundamental mistake with current risk weighted capital requirements has also been widely ignored.

@PerKurowski

“Any populism yours can do, mine can do better; mine can do populism better than yours” “No he can’t!” “Yes he can, yes he can, yes he can!!!!”

Sir, Simon Kuper ends his “Secrets from the populist playbook” March 16, with “Some new politicians, notably the new Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, can rival Trump for engagement. To some degree, we are all populists now.” “Secrets from the populist playbook”, March 16.

Indeed but the populists must also be measured with respect to the success they have when selling their populism.

For instance, our current bank regulators must be some of the most successful populists ever. Just think how they have managed to convince the world (most or all in FT included) that by imposing risk weighted capital requirements for banks, they are reducing the risks for our bank system. With that they have distorted the allocation of bank credit all over the world, weakening the economies and increasing the dangers of a systemic meltdown of our banks. 

Sir, I am from Venezuela, and so unfortunately I know too much about populists, but, when compared to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s and the Financial Stability Board’s populism, Hugo Chavez was just a quite gifted amateur.

@PerKurowski

PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board (FSB)

Yes, higher education must be much more of a joint venture, for all involved.

Sir, Sheila Bair is absolutely right that “proceeds from student debts go to colleges, while the risk of repayment falls on borrowers and, if they default, on taxpayers provides little incentive for schools to contain costs [which] provides little incentive for schools to contain costs.” As a solution she refers to “income share agreements” where universities provide some funding and students pay back a small share of their income over some years. “An investment model to put US students through college”, March 15. 

Since in a 2007 Op-Ed I asked whether higher education should not be more of a joint venture, I fully agree with the orientation of these proposals. 

That said I would not leave it solely as a student to college/university level. I believe that professors should also have skin in the game, and so perhaps their retirement plans should include a clear linkage to how their students did.

And why leave it at that? Why not think of securitizing those possible future participations in earnings so as to provide some upfront money to cover expenses? And what about insurance companies investing in these? And what about some students crowdfunding their tuition fees?

Where I do part though from Bair’s opinion, is on the concept that high earning students could/should subsidize the study costs of lower earning professions. That could cause some unexpected distortions, and it is much more a general societal responsibility, which the higher earning - higher tax paying already share.

PS. Sir, over the years I have written several letters to you on this subject... but 😒

@PerKurowski

Capital requirements for banks that favor the financing of the safer present like houses and sovereigns, over the riskier future like entrepreneurs doom the world to secular stagnation.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “the financial mechanisms used to manage secular stagnation exacerbate it. We need more policy instruments. The obvious one is fiscal policy. If private demand is structurally weak, the government needs to fill the gap. Fortunately, low interest rates make deficits more sustainable.” “Monetary policy has run its course” March 13.

No! Secular stagnation is guaranteed by capital requirements for banks that favor the financing of the safer present like houses and sovereigns, over the riskier future like entrepreneurs. The subsidies implicit in having assigned a 0% risk weight to public debt translate into artificial low market rates. Weigh the sovereigns equal to citizens, at 100% and you will immediately see those rates shoot up.

Of course kicking the can further down with more fiscal spending based on more public debt will give our economies a breather, but for what purpose? Had central bankers and regulators accepted in that loony 62.5 times allowed bank leverages for anything rated as AAA, and insane 0% risk weight assigned to Greece that caused the crises; and gotten rid of their risk weighting based on ex ante perceptions and not on ex post possibilities, our economies would be in a much better shape. But no, their huge liquidity injections seem to have mostly been put in place in order to cover up for their mistakes. And statist journalists backed them up by solely blaming banks, credit rating agencies and markets. 

Déjà vu😡 https://teawithft.blogspot.com/search/label/secular%20stagnation

@PerKurowski

Venezuela poses a unique opportunity, for all citizens of the world, to clearly define what should be considered as odious credits, and how these should be treated.

Sir, Colby Smith and Robin Wigglesworth quote a holder of Venezuelan debt with: “The ultimate objective is to reach a point where [Venezuela] regains market access at market-determined terms without the risk of renewed default”,“Venezuela debt fight pits veterans against hot-headed newcomers” March 13.

It is absolutely clear Venezuela needs much financing to reconstruct its entire run down basic infrastructure but, as a citizen, having seen how much public indebtedness goes hand in hand with corruption and waste, and how it so often makes it harder for the private sector to finance its needs, I would not mind Venezuela not reaching that “ultimate objective” for a long-long time, especially not as long as the government already receives directly all oil revenues.

Our Constitution clearly establishes that all “Mineral and hydrocarbon deposits of any nature that exist within the territory of the nation… are of public domain, and therefore inalienable and not transferable” and yet 99% of the debt it contracts is implicitly based on its creditors having access to the revenues produced by extracting Venezuela’s non-renewable natural resources, mainly oil. 

So now, the least our legitimate creditors could do, is to help us extract oil; and to that effect the following is a message I have been tweeting for about two years: “For Venezuelans to be able to eat quickly, starts by quickly handing over PDVSA’s junk to its and Venezuela’s creditors, so that they quickly put it to work, to see if they are able to quickly collect something, so to pay us citizens, not bandits, some oil royalties quickly”

But, that said, what is most important is to classify all Venezuela’s debts. Many of these were not duly approved; others had a large ingredient of corruption and lack of transparency and so all these must be scrutinized in order to establish their legitimacy.

For example, when Goldman Sachs in May 2017 handed over $800 million cash in exchange for $2.8billion Venezuelan bonds paying a 12.75% interest rate, to a notoriously corrupt and inept regime that was committing crimes against humanity. Especially since Lloyd Blankfein cannot argue an “I did not know”, that to me is as odious as odious credits come.

Sir, it behooves all citizens of the world to use this opportunity to set up an adequate defense against governments anywhere, mortgaging their future with odious credit/odious debts.

That also includes stopping statist regulators from distorting with a 0% risk weight the allocation of bank credit in favor of the sovereign, against the 100% risk weighted citizens. 

@PerKurowski

Thanks to bank regulators, if in need, there are now way too little defences to deploy in a countercyclical way

Sir, you hold that there are “reasons to be wary [as bank] regulation is, once again, being eased just at the moment when it ought to be tightened” “Easing financial controls is cause for wariness” March 11.

In support: “Many market participants, moreover, think credit and market cycles are at their peak — just the time when counter-cyclical defences might be deployed”

Sir, is it really when markets are at their peak that we should kick off its drop, by tightening regulations? At the peak of the market, what we really should have is our ordinary defences, like bank capital, to be at their highest levels, so that adequate counter-cyclical defences can be deployed if needed. Are these defences now at the highest? Absolutely not!

Why? Among others, the results from an absolute incapacity to comprehend the pro-cyclicality of many regulations, such as those of the risk weighted/ credit ratings capital requirements for banks. These are based on the ex ante perceptions of risk when times are good, and not on the ex post possibilities when times are less good. The result, in terms of deployable counter-cyclical defences, is total unpreparedness.

Sir you write: “A Financial Times series has highlighted the risks of the rapid expansion of credit to lowly rated, more indebted companies.” No that is wrong! It were the “good times”, made possible by low interest rates and huge liquidity injections, which allowed for too many securities to be rated, ex ante, as being of investment grade, which caused a rapid expansion of credit. What, ex post, perceived rougher times cause, is a rapid expansion of those securities becoming rated as junk.

@PerKurowski

Does not common sense dictate that in good times we want our banks to be weary about what they perceive as safe? Does not what’s seen as risky take care of itself?

Joe Rennison writes: “Investors and rating agencies have warned that companies might struggle to refinance huge debt burdens, resulting in downgrades from triple B into high yield or “junk” territory.” “BIS sounds alarm on risk of corporate debt fire sale” March 6.

What does that mean? Namely the risk that ex ante perceptions of risk might, ex post, turn out really wrong.

Also, “Bond fund managers could then have to sell the bonds as many are bound by investment mandates barring them from holding large amounts of debt rated below investment grade. ‘Rating-based investment mandates can lead to fire sales,’ warned Sirio Aramonte and Egemen Eren, economists, in the BIS quarterly review released yesterday.”

And what does that mean? Clearly procyclicality in full swing! Just like the insane procyclicality caused by the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

Sir, does not common sense tell you that in good times we want our banks to be weary about what they perceive as safe, as what they perceive as risky takes care of itself? And in bad times, do we not want our banks not to be too weary of the risky, and burdened with having to raise extra capital when it could be the hardest for them?

Sir, so what are regulators doing allowing banks to hold less capital against what they in good times might wrongly perceive as safe, and imposing higher capital on what they would anyhow want to stay away from, especially in bad times?

Sir, for literally the 2,781 time, why does not the Financial Times want to dig deeper into unavailing what must be the greatest regulatory mistake ever? 

Are you scared of then not being invited to BIS’s Basel Committee’s and central banks’ conferences? “Without fear and without favour” Frankly!

@PerKurowski

The 2008 crisis had little or nothing to do with a tax bias in favour of debt finance

Sir, Martin Wolf discussing a system where for tax purposes “no deduction would be allowed for financial costs” writes “there would no longer be today’s bias in favour of debt finance, which creates significant risks to economic stability, as the financial crisis demonstrated.”“The world needs to change the way it taxes companies”

One could sure argue there should not be a bias in favour of debt finance, and that it has had an important role in creating excessive corporate debt, but to argue that it caused the financial crisis is clearly wrong.

Does Mr Wolf really think that all those in the subprime sector who bought houses on credit, and whose mortgages got packaged into ex ante AAA rated securities, which ex post turned out not to be AAA securities, and which set off the 2008 crisis, did so because of tax considerations?

And does Mr Wolf think that the reason banks held so little capital against these securities was that the dividends they were to pay were not tax deductible? Was it not that the US investment banks and the European banks were allowed to hold these AAA rated securities against only 1.6% capital?

@PerKurowski

Should we prohibit divergent perceptions of credit risk? No and yes!

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “In a recent paper, Marcello Minenna of Con-sob (Italy’s securities regulator) argues that divergent perceptions of credit risk across member states reinforce divergent competitiveness in goods and services. This puts businesses in peripheral countries at a persistent disadvantage, which becomes worse in times of stress.” “The ECB must reconsider its plan to tighten” March 6.

So should we prohibit divergent perceptions of credit risk? No and Yes!

Absolutely no! The existence of divergent perceptions of credit risk is crucial for an effective allocation of credit.

Absolutely yes! Bank capital requirements based on divergent perceptions of credit risk guarantees an inefficient allocation of credit.

The truth is that businesses in peripheral countries are less at disadvantage for their countries being perceived risky, than for the regulators, or other authorities, considering that there are others much safer. The risk weight for the Italian sovereign, courtesy of the EU authorities is 0%, while the risk weight of an Italian unrated entrepreneur is 100%. Need I say more?

Wolf opines, “The painful truth is that the eurozone is very close to the danger zone [as] the spectres of sovereign default and ‘redenomination risk’ — that is, a break-up of the eurozone — may re-emerge”. Indeed, and the prime explanation for that is precisely the 0% risk weights assigned to its sovereigns, those de facto indebted in a currency that is not denominated in a domestic (printable) currency.

We’ve just celebrated the 20thanniversary of the Euro. The challenges its adoption posed were well known. What has EU done to really help confront those challenges? Very little to nothing! In truth, with its Sovereign Debt Privileges, they have managed to make it all so much only worse. Sir, considering that, for someone who truly wanted and wants the EU to succeed, it is truly nauseating to see the daily self-promoting tweets from the European Commission.

@PerKurowski

Much needed bank capital reforms are hindered by bank lobbying, and by regulators unwilling to discuss their mistakes.

Sir, Benoît Lallemand, Secretary-General of Finance Watch writes: “European bank supervisors last year found ‘unjustified underestimations’ of risk in nearly half of the 105 banks they investigated” “Banks should submit to logic of reform on capital allocation”, March 6.

For those regulators who assigned a risk weight of 150% for what is so innocuous for our bank systems as what is rated below BB-, is not assigning a meager 20% for what could really endanger our bank systems, precisely because it is ex ante rated a very safe AAA to AA, a much worse ‘unjustified underestimations’ of risk?

Surprisingly Lallemand opines that “Risk-based capital measures could still serve their original purpose: as an internal instrument to guide banks’ capital allocation processes.

What? Where in all Basel I or II regulations has he seen stated their purpose was of being “an internal instrument to guide banks’ capital allocation processes”?

It is only the complete elimination of risk weighting that could “encourage banks to lend more productively because it would lessen the regulatory skew towards seemingly safe assets, which has done so much to deprive the real economy of capital, inflate housing and land prices, and feed financial instability.”

Because, even with a 5% leverage ratio, something Lallemand favors, keeping risk weighting would keep on distorting the allocation of bank credit on the margin, there where it matters the most.

Lallemand ends arguing, “that such reforms have still not happened is testament to the power of the banking lobby”. No, much more than that, it has been the refusal by bank regulators to admit their mistakes.

Would there have been any type 2008 crisis if European and American investment banks had not been allowed to leverage a mind-blowing 62.5 times with assets rated AAA to AA, or with assets for which an AAA rated entity like AIG had sold a default guarantee? The answer to that is, an absolute definitive, NO!

@PerKurowski

Bad bank regulations have placed the procyclicality of credit ratings on steroids

Sir, Joe Rennison writes: “Big US companies [have] spent the years since the financial crisis gorging on cheap debt [forgoing] higher credit ratings and [slipping] down into the lower reaches of borrowers deemed “investment grade”, which implies a relatively low risk of default. Growing debt piles have fed fears among investors that… worsening economic conditions… could potentially send credit ratings even lower, into the junkyard of ‘high yield’ [which would make the financing more expensive and thereby increase the difficulties]” “Investors urge debt-bloated US companies to shape up” March 5.

Good times allow good credit ratings giving an easy going; bad times produce worse credit ratings causing harder goings. No doubt credit ratings are procyclical. But then consider the fact that current risk weighted capital requirements for banks, better credit ratings less capital – worse credit ratings more capital, places an additional level of procyclicality on top of it all, and one of the principal faults of Basel Committee’s should lay bare in front of you. 

It has not been corrected yet. It has not even really been discussed yet.

@PerKurowski

We might need to parade current bank regulators down our avenues wearing cones of shame.

Sir, Patrick Jenkins writes: “Bill Coen, secretary-general of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision… said auditors should be given responsibility for checking banks’ calculations [so as to have] another line of defence to ensure assets are [given] the proper risk weighting”, “Metro Bank sparks call for external checks on loan risks” February 4.

I totally disagree, auditors look at ex post realities, on what banks have already incorporated into their balance sheets, What most matters are the ex ante perceptions of risk. 

Jenkins opines here “The error at Metro was to put some loans into standard risk-weighting buckets, determined by the UK regulator”. Sir, I ask, is that not evidence enough that we should get rid of current bank regulators?

If somebody is to blame, that is precisely the Basel Committee who with its risk weighted capital requirements for banks decided that what bankers perceived ex ante perceived as safe, was so much safer to our bank system than what they perceived as risky.

Basel Committee’s Bill Coen should be asked to explain the rationale of a standardized 20% risk weight for what, rated AAA, is dangerous to our bank systems, and 150% for what, rated below BB-, becomes so innocous. 

Jenkins opines: “The error at Metro was to put some loans into standard risk-weighting buckets, determined by the UK regulator”. Sir, I ask, is that not evidence enough that it behooves us to hold our bank regulators very accountable, perhaps even by parading them down our avenues wearing cones of shame? Perhaps hand in hand with those unable or unwilling to question them.

@PerKurowski

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

My tweet on why the world is becoming a much angrier place than what’s warranted by the usual factors.

Sir, Chris Giles writes “Britain is an angry place: furious about its politics, unsure of its place in the world and increasingly resigned to a grinding stagnation of living standards” “Anger and inequality make for a heady mix” March 1.

Giles analyzes the increasing discontent as a function of the economy, in terms of economic growth, inflation, income inequality, weak productivity and employment rates, whether existing or expected.

That is certainly valid but, sadly and worrisome, there is much more to the much higher levels of anger brewing than could seem be warranted by that. That goes also for the rest of the world. 

Sir, what is happening? Here is my own tweet-sized explanation of that.

“Shameless polarization and redistribution profiteers, sending out their messages of hate and envy through social media, at zero marginal cost, are exploiting our confirmation bias, namely the want or need to believe what we hear, up to the tilt. It will all end very badly.”

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2010/05/speakers-corner-speakers-have-moved-to.html

@PerKurowski

Bank regulators insist on feeding the systemic risk of credit ratings, even after it became tragically evident.

Sir, Kate Allen writes “Funds that allocate capital based on instruments’ investment grades and index weighting may look as if they are playing it safe but they are, in fact, taking a gamble, creating towers of risk, any floor of which could prove unstable… do not look to the canaries in the financial markets’ coal mines to sound an early warning. By the time the downgrades come, it will be too late” “Tail Risk” February 28.

Indeed by the “time issuers’ credit ratings were downgraded, [banks] were already staring the worst-case scenario in the face.

Basel II’s standardized risk weights for the risk weighted bank capital requirements:

AAA to AA rated = 20%; allowed leverage 62.5 times to 1.

Below BB- rated = 150%; allowed leverage 8.3 times to 1

Absolute lunacy! With the same risk weight banks would anyway build up much more exposure to what they ex ante perceived as very safe, than against what they perceived as very risky.

As is, that regulation dooms our bank systems to especially large crisis, resulting from especially large exposures, to what is perceived as especially safe, against especially little capital. 

Allen observes: “An investment structure that is revealed to have done a bad job only when disaster arrives, as in the financial crisis”. Unfortunately no. Bank regulators blamed the credit rating agencies, and not themselves for betting too much on these, and so that so faulty regulations that should have been eliminated with a big “Sorry!” is still very well active. 

PS. In FT January 2003: “Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic error to be propagated at modern speeds. Friends, please consider that the world is tough enough as it is.”

PS. At World Bank: April 2003: "Market or authorities have decided to delegate the evaluation of risk into the hands of much fewer players such as the credit rating agencies. This will, almost by definition, introduce systemic risks in the market"

@PerKurowski

Will there now be opportunities for gig unionists?

Sir, Sarah O’Connor thinks the unions might have a good chance to adapt to the gig economy “Gig economy deals promise a brighter future for trade unions” February 27.

I am not so sure. There is a de facto class war in the real economy between those with jobs wanting better conditions and those just wanting a job. And that is what nourishes the gig economy.

Imposing on the gig economy benefits, is just like raising minimum wages, it just raises the bar for the offer of jobs. An unconditional universal basic income would instead provide a step stool to better reach up to whatever jobs are offered.

Of course those who benefit, politically or financially, from a conditional redistribution, or from negotiating on behalf of workers, do not like that option as it clearly erodes their job opportunities. 

How will unions handle it? I have no idea; perhaps there will be some gig unionists.

PS. In the same vein, perhaps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a gig politician. We’ll see if she lands a second term. Having helped New York lose Amazon’s 25.000 well paying jobs does not bode well for here there. Perhaps she will get a call from another state.

PS. Amazon is one of those entities automating and robotizing the most. So it is a bit surprising to read that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opines “We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work. . . . We should be excited by that”

@PerKurowski

More than between left and right, the division is between tax paying citizens and witting or unwitting possible redistribution profiteers

Sir, Wolfgang Münchau writes, “Liberal democracy is in decline for a reason. Liberal regimes have proved incapable, of solving problems that arose directly from liberal policies like tax cuts, fiscal consolidation and deregulation: persistent financial instability and its economic consequences” “The future belongs to the left, not the right” February 25.

The risk weighted capital requirements placed on top of any natural risk aversion distorts the allocation of bank credit in favor of what is perceived as safe and against what’s perceived as risky, has nothing to do with liberal policies. The risk weights of 0% the sovereign and 100% the citizens, just puts crony statism on steroids.

Münchau also “The euro, too, was a liberal fair-weather construction.” That could be but when EU authorities assigned a 0% risk weight to all public debt of eurozone sovereigns, denominated in a currency that is not their domestic (printable) one no one could call that a liberal construction. It was idiotically dooming the euro to failure.

Sir, I feel left or right labels do not really define what we citizen are up against. Our real adversaries are those I have come to call redistribution profiteers. In my home land Venezuela, where the central governments some years has received 97% of all export revenues, that is easy to see. But even in the rest of the world that is happening, unfortunately without being sufficiently understood. Much of it is the result of citizens lacking the most basic societal information, namely how much their central and local government receive in income, from all taxes, per citizen. 

Of course taxes are needed but such per citizen data, published regularly, would also put pressure on improving the day-to-day quality of government bureaucracy. I mean we want our taxes to be spent well. Don’t we?

PS. As a self declared radical of the middle, or extremist of the center, I feel the best hope we now have to improve our societies is by means of an unconditional universal basic income. That UBI should be 100% paid for, be large enough to help all reach up to jobs in the real economy and be small enough so as not allow anyone to stay in bed.

@PerKurowski

FT journalists. Is this really the legacy you want to leave to your children?

Not daring to ask bank regulators to explain why they've decided that what’s ex ante perceived as risky, is more dangerous ex post to our bank systems than what’s ex ante is perceived as safe

If QE seems to have turned into irreversible and the economy even needs a QE4, does that not point to something not going right?

Sir, Michael Howell writes:“Modern financial systems have grown dependent on huge central bank balance sheets… our concern today is a growing shortage of central bank liquidity caused by the deliberate unwinding of the QE policies put in place to replace the private sector funding that evaporated in 2007-08” “Liquidity drain will force central banks towards ‘QE4’” February 20.

What does this mean? That ever growing central bank balance sheets are now to be a standard feature in our economy? If QEs is to replace private sector funding, are we not heading into central bank statism?

What has QEs achieved? Because of the risk weighted capital requirements, the liquidity injected has resulted in way too little financing of the “riskier” future (entrepreneurs) weakening the real economy; and too much to the “safer” present (mortgages, buybacks, AAA rated securities and public debt) creating bubbles.

If it comes down to a QE4 let’s pray regulators admit their mistake and throw out forever the idiotic risk weighting.

Idiotic? Yes, consider the following tail risks.

The best, that which perceived as very risky turning out to be very safe.

The worst, that which perceived as very safe turning out to be very risky.

And the risk weighted capital requirements for banks kills the best and puts the worst on steroids… dooming us to suffer an weakened economy as well as an especially severe bank crisis, resulting from especially large exposures, to what was especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

PS. Here is a current summary of why I know the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, is utter and dangerous nonsense.

@PerKurowski

If Germany’s euro debt gets to be redenominated in Deutsche Marks, what would happen to its commercial surplus?

Sir, Kate Allen writes: “German bonds, or Bunds… are the eurozone’s safe asset… the spread against equivalent Italian bond yields to about 2.9 per cent.” “Tail Risk” February 19.

So if Bunds is the Eurozone’s safe asset, how come EU authorities assign it a risk weight that is just the same as all other Eurozone sovereigns’ debts, namely 0%? And this even when they all are indebted in a currency that is not really their own domestic (printable) one.

That 0% risk weight translates into that European banks do not have to hold any capital against debts of the Eurozone sovereigns… a clear subsidy... especially to those sovereigns most remote from earning that 0%.

So, had that not been the spreads of many eurozone sovereigns against Bunds would have been much larger, and in such case many of those sovereigns, like Greece, like Italy, like Spain, like Portugal would have had to borrow less, and would therefore have had to reduce their commercial deficits, reducing by that Germany’s commercial surplus.

Allen opines: “Investors need to put their money somewhere and [if there are not enough Bunds they are forced into substitutes which then rapidly become overloaded and suffer price bubbles.”

Indeed but when we consider that much of that investment money was supplied by ECB buying European sovereign debt, including Bunds, perhaps we should start by looking there before we might add fuel to a dangerous fire.

PS. Brexit,  the 0% risk weight and the EU

@PerKurowski

If only regulators had analyzed their risk weighted capital requirements for banks in terms of bets.

Sir, Tim Harford refers to Nassim Taleb, warning of “the ‘ludic fallacy’ — treating the unknown risks of life as though they were the known risks of a game of chance”, “Experimental living beats thinking in bets” February 17.

That is somewhat like when regulators treated the unknown risks in banking and set their risk weighted capital requirements. 

Harford also mentions Annie Duke’s recommendation “that we should always be willing to ask ourselves, ‘do I want to bet on that’ — it’s easy to be overconfident if there are no obvious consequences for being wrong. A bet forces us to think about the odds and the possibility that someone else may know better.”

Oh, if only our bank regulators have asked themselves: “Do we want to bet our bank systems on that what gets an AAA to AA rating, issued by human fallible credit rating agencies, is so safe we should only need to require banks to hold 1.6% in capital against such assets and so allow them to leverage 62.5 times with these?” Had they posed that question, the crisis resulting from excessive exposures to AAA rated securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector would not have happened.

“We have risk-weighted the capital requirements for banks in order to make our bank system safer.” Someone has either played tricks on them or they are bluffing. The sad part is that so few dare to call them out on it. And, when I do that, many just brush me off with a “he’s just got an obsession”.

Though Harford accepts that “Thinking in bets is a rigorous and admirable habit” for many cases he favors “Thinking in experiments [as that] allows us to learn [and might be] less painful.

In case of bank regulations experiments are not needed. Just go out and look at all the crises and try to find one that was caused by excessive exposures to something perceived as risky when placed on the balance sheets of banks. None! Should that not tell you something about our unwillingness to learn when the lessons are hard to swallow? 

Sir, using Edward Thorp’s real casino risks, in banking, the Basel Committee represents “the crooked dealer” and the risk weighted capital requirements “the poisoned coffee” 

Casino games, like roulette, are all based on offering all possible bets exactly the same expected payout adjusted for their respective probabilities. If it was not so, no casino would survive. So it was in banking, until risk weighted capital requirements offered banks higher risk adjusted return on equity for what was perceived, decreed or concocted as safe (betting on a color), than for what was perceived as risky (betting on a single number). The consequence? Our bank systems will fail especially bad, by building up especially large exposures to what is especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital. The 2008 crisis, and Greece, were just canaries in that mine.

PS. Here is the current summary of why I know the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, is utter and dangerous nonsense.

@PerKurowski

For social harmony, in our time, we need a big enough and a small enough universal basic income.

Sir, Chris Giles refers to a “1994 OECD study [which] contained a warning of the dangers in store for countries that failed to tackle problems in their labour markets. “It brings with it unravelling of the social fabric.” “Improve employment rates to tackle inequality” February 15.

Giles opines, “Flexibility and social protection is a winning combination for advanced economies. While it does not prevent all employment problems, whether you take a right-of-centre “work not welfare” attitude or a left-of-centre “a hand up not a handout” stance, in general the combination works.”

I agree! An unconditional universal basic income, large enough to allow many to reach up to whatever jobs are available, is “a hand up not a handout”.

And an unconditional universal basic income, small enough so as not allow many to stay in bed, is also “work not welfare”.

So what’s keeping an UBI from being implemented?

To begin there’s not sufficient recognition of the real conflicts, basically a class war, between those who having a job want better pay and those who want a job at any pay.

But, first and foremost, it is those who profit, politically and monetary, on imposing their conditionalties when redistributing tax revenues, who strongly oppose a UBI, since it, naturally, would negatively affect the value of their franchise.

PS. The Chavez/Maduro regimes are clearly outliers among the redistribution profiteers but just as an example I once calculated that the 40% poorest of Venezuela had received less than 15% from the Bolivarian Revolution than what should have been their allotment had Venezuela’s net oil revenues been shared out equally to all. On the other side many of the odious profiteers pocketed many thousand times what should have been their share.

@PerKurowski

A tweet dedicated to all those in FT that write the column of "Tail Risk"

Two tail risks:

The best, that which perceived as very risky turns out to be very safe.

The worst, that which perceived as very safe turns out to be very risky.

Risk weighted capital requirements for banks, kills the first and puts the worst one on steroids.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2018/08/risk-weighted-capital-requirements-for.html

Cheers

FT, do you really mean it?

FT, do you really mean that if David Malpass becomes president of the World Bank the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) dominated by China will become a worthier development bank than WBG?

Sir, in “US makes a poor choice for World Bank chief” February 7, you lash out that if David Malpass becomes president of the World Bank, that will lead to a “dysfunctional organisation that will encourage its activity to shift to other development banks, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.” Really? Has this do to with David Malpass, or has this to do with someone else who is not to your liking?

In support of your doom you mention that Malpass’ “judgment even on economics, his supposed speciality, is wanting. Notoriously, as then chief economist at Bear Stearns, Mr Malpass was blithely confident about the strength of the US economy in 2007 — a year before the global financial crisis hit and his own employer went under” 

Sir, like many he had confidence in those AAA rated securities that SEC, which supervised investment banks in the US, allowed, based on recommendations of the Basel Committee, Bear Sterns to hold against only 1.6% in capital, to leverage over 62.5 times. I have not read much about you judging the regulators’ specialty wanting.

As for the World Bank you argue that its role is “providing global public goods such as managing scarce water supplies, combating pandemics and coping with the effects of climate change.”

No, its role is not to substitute for governments? The World Bank is a development bank, which means, at least in my book, its role is to help and assist financing countries to develop their own capacities to manage scarce water supplies, combate pandemics and cope with the effects of climate change.

Sir, you know I have a concern about the World Bank, namely that it does not object to the current risk weighted capital requirements for banks. I hold that it should, because risk taking is the oxygen of any development.

Who knows, perhaps someone who has seen first hand what happens if you trust what’s “safe” too much to be safe, might be exactly what the World Bank needs.

@PerKurowski

I hope David Malpass, nominated by USA, if confirmed as president of the world’s premier development bank, understands that risk-taking is the oxygen of all development.

Sir, Robert Zoellick writes: “If policymakers overlook the experience of developing countries during the crisis, they are less likely to consider emerging market dynamics, understand developing economies’ sources of resilience and appreciate vulnerabilities” “Who ever runs the World Bank needs a plan for emerging markets” February 6.

Of course no one should overlook experiences obtained during crises but, focusing excessively on these, puts a damper on the potential growth between the crises.

In his book “Money: Whence it came, where it went” (1975), John Kenneth Galbraith, referring to the accelerated growth experienced in the western and south-western parts of the United States during the 19thcentury, argued that it was the result of an aggressive banking sector working in a relatively unregulated environment. “Banks opened and closed doors and bankruptcies were frequent, but as a consequence of agile and flexible credit policies, even the banks that failed left a wake of development in their passing.”

For instance when banks are required to hold more capital when lending to their “risky” entrepreneurs, than when lending to their “safe” sovereign, as current Basel regulations mandate, that is bad enough in developed countries, but, in developing/emerging countries, it is absolute lunacy.

While an Executive Director in the World Bank 2002-2004, a time during which Basel I was discussed I did what I could to alert to the huge mistakes of its pillar, the risk weighted capital requirements for banks. Unfortunately I was not able to convey my warnings, and these were approved in June 2004.

I hope that David Malpass, now nominated by USA, if confirmed as the next president of the World Bank, fully understands the following:

First, that risk-taking is the oxygen of any development, and therefore the regulators’ risk adverse risk weighted capital requirements impede banks from taking efficiently the risks that are needed to push our economies forward. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A Shedd.

Second, that what’s perceived ex ante as risky is much less dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe, and so that these regulations doom us to especially large bank crises, because of especially large bank exposures to what is especially perceived (or decreed) as safe, against especially little bank capital.

God make us daring!

PS. Here is a brief summary of what I had to say on this issue before and during my term as an ED. It includes two letters published by FT

@PerKurowski

Carrot: We will pay you $xxx for each Kalashnikov you hand over. Stick: If we find you one after x you’ll go to jail for ten years!

Sir, in your “Broad front needed to address Venezuela crisis” you opine that the “Diplomatic effort requires reasonable balance of carrot and stick” February 5.

Indeed! In 2007 the degenerated Hugo Chávez decided to weaponize his supporters, the “colectivos”, by importing 100.000 Kalashnikovs from a willing salesman, Russia.

For Venezuela to come out reasonably well from its current predicaments, those rifles must be collected.

If all those who oppose the possession of guns in their own country dedicated just three percent of their efforts to help Venezuela to collect those rifles so as to have these destroyed, they might provide more human assistance than shipping many tons of foods and medicines.

If that’s not done all food or medicines sent might not reach those unarmed Venezuelans who most need it.

@PerKurowski

Redistribution profiteers have a vested interest in us ignoring the wealthy already redistribute their purchase capacity.

Sir, Tim Harford writes “One academic paper produced by Emmanuel Saez (a star in the study of inequality) and Peter Diamond (a Nobel laureate and colleague of Mirrlees) estimated that the combined rate of tax on the income of high earners could be 73 per cent in the US without proving counter-productive…[for that they] assume that a dollar is 25 times more valuable to a person on about $50,000 a year than to a person on $500,000.” “The super-rich are an easy target for tax rises” February 2.

Indeed, and that‘s why those with much higher income sometimes buy shoes that are 25 times more expensive than those earning much less. But, where does that type of analysis take us? Should jobs producing expensive manually produced shoes be prohibited? Should we have dollars with sensors that measure the value we assign to them? 

The problem with all the “resolve poverty and inequality by taxing the wealthy” is that it ignores the fact that all the purchase power that the income of the wealthy contains, is immediately returned to the real economy when purchasing assets and services. 

In this sense those prescribing higher taxes on wealth are, at the end of the day just arguing, they are better redistributors than the wealthy. Are they? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. In Venezuela those redistributing wealth have clearly done so in order to get their hands on the wealth. In Venezuela we have a saying that goes “The one who cuts the cake in order to distribute the cake, keeps the best part of the cake.

PS. Thomas Piketty should visit the Museum of Louvre in his Paris, and make a checklist of how much would not have existed there, had it not been for some “filthy rich”

@PerKurowski

Lie Detectors, many journalists would also benefit from lessons on fake news.

Sir, Simon Kuper describes the experiences of Belgian journalist Valentin Dauchot when dispatched to discuss fake news with classes of 10 and 11-years-old in Europe. Lie Detectors, a Brussels-based NGO that sends journalists to do that, finds that “children are often internet-savvier than teachers, and probably more so than old people”. “A lesson in fake news”, February 2.

Sir, I wonder how those children would classify the following information:

“Since your teachers have decided that dark forests are much more dangerous for all of you to enter, than staying out playing in an open field, anyone of you who enters the darkness of such forest, will be forced to eat broccoli and spinach for a full month. Anyone of you staying in the sunlight of the open field, will be rewarded with chocolate cake and ice cream each day for a whole month”. True or fake?

The children would respond: “Of course we wish it was true of course but, unfortunately, it has to be fake. Who would give us chocolate and ice cream for staying where we want to be, and spinach and broccoli for not entering what we already find to be scary?

Correspondingly, how would adults respond when they hear that regulators have risk weighted the capital requirements for banks, allowing these to hold much less of it against safe assets than against risky assets?

Most adults would say surely “True” “Great!”, and this even if anyone who has read anything about bank crises know well that the worst of these always result from excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as very safe but that, ex post, turns out to be very risky, e.g. AAA rated securities.

Of course bankers, in this case being the children, cannot believe their luck with such fake regulations being decreed true by the Basel Committee. Imagine, earning the highest risk adjusted returns on equity on what’s perceived as safe! Imagine being able to hold much less equity against what we most love to hold, which of course leaves much more for bonuses to us!

Sir, how could Lie detectors help the adults, including of course journalists, like many in FT, to be more alert to the truthfulness of news and regulations? A good place to start would be with a full explanation of confirmation bias… that here resulting from most loving much too much the populist message of: “We have risk weighted the bank capital requirements for you so as to make these safer” 

@PerKurowski

When restructuring Venezuela’s debt, start with identifying all odious credits.

Colby Smith writes “analysts reckon Venezuela has some $140bn debt outstanding with over $65bn owed to bondholders and another roughly $40bn due to China and Russia.” “Venezuela’s welter of debt will mean a messy restructuring” February 2.

The key word here is “reckon”… because the indebtedness of Venezuela has clearly not followed a transparent process. Frequently there are references to odious debts, but very rarely or never to the fact that these most often arise from odious credits that should never have been awarded. That “odiousness” extends from a shameful lack of due diligence to outright participation in corrupt acts.

All citizens in the world would greatly benefit from having a clear definition of what should be considered odious credits, and of its consequences. Without it, any Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM) similar to the one proposed 2002 at the IMF by Anne O. Kruger, would be found wanting.

PS. Because Robin Wigglesworth has touched on this theme I am copying him. 

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/05/06/2161045/donald-trump-and-the-sovereign-debt-restructuring-mechanism-revisited/

https://www.ft.com/content/fa6850cc-96c3-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0

The Blue Monday fiction is nothing when compared to Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements fiction.

Sir, Tim Harford writes, “Given that it is pure fiction, the “Blue Monday” meme is showing surprising longevity”, and he asks “Why do such ideas endure? What do they tell us about our attitude to science, evidence or the truth itself?” “The pseudoscience of Blue Monday hits trust” January 26.

But really, what’s the significance of some falling for an innocous Blue Monday fiction, when compared to that fiction that what's perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what's perceived as safe? 

The first one might cause some to travel on not a really adequate date for them, the latter, when translated into risk weighted bank capital requirements for banks, distorts the allocation of credit to the real economy; only guaranteeing especially large crises, because of especially large bank exposures to something perceived as especially safe that turns out to be especially risky, held against especially little bank capital.

Harford refers to Onora O’Neill in that “we should be aiming for a better ability to trust what is trustworthy and to mistrust what is not”. In the case of journalists he says that “the non-experts among us could do more to keep ourselves well-informed.”

Since the information on bank regulations is out there readily available for anyone who cares to look at it, that should suffice to answer his question on whether “we should be more trusting, or more sceptical?”

Sir, Skepticism 101 courses are much needed. May I humbly suggest you and Harford could benefit from taking one of these?

@PerKurowski

If you finance “safe” consumption more than “risky” production, growth will come to a standstill.

John Dizard writes: “What if global income growth, or even national income growth, cannot cover the cost of servicing capital? Then the capital market machinery would have to shift into generating losses rather than returns.” “Bondholders face greater likelihood of haircuts as system goes into reverse” January 26.

Absolutely! When regulators decided that banks could hold less capital against the “safer” present than against the “riskier future”; meaning they could leverage more with the safer present than with the riskier future; meaning they would be able to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when financing the safer present than the riskier future, they ordained that to happen.

Basel II assigned a risk weight of 35% to residential mortgages, which on an 8% base capital signified a capital requirement of 2.8%, which signified an allowed leverage of 35.7 times.

Basel II assigned a risk weight of 100% to unrated entrepreneurs, which on an 8% base capital signified a capital requirement of 2.8%, which signified an allowed leverage of 12.5 times.

That allows banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity financing residential mortgages than giving loans to entrepreneurs.

The consequence? Many will sit in their houses without the jobs needed to service the mortgages or pay the utilities.

@PerKurowski

What good is it to celebrate the euro’s first 20 years if, as is, it won’t make the next 20?

Sir I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Marking the euro at 20: the eurozone is doomed to succeed” January 16.

November 1998 in an Op-Ed titled “Burning the Bridges in Europe” I wrote: 

“As participants in a globalized world in which Europe has an important role, we must naturally wish all members luck, no matter what worries we might secretly harbor.

The Euro has one characteristic that differentiates it from the Dollar. This characteristic makes me feel less optimistic as to its chances of success. The Dollar is backed by a solidly unified political entity, the United States of America. The Euro, on the other hand, seems to be aimed at creating unity and cohesion. It is not the result of these.

The possibility that the European countries will subordinate their political desires to the whims of a common Central Bank that may be theirs but really isn’t, is not a certainty. 

Exchange rates, while not perfect, are escape valves. By eliminating this valve, European countries must make their economic adjustments in real terms. This makes these adjustments much more explosive. High unemployment will not be confronted with a devaluation of the currency which reduces the real value of salaries in an indirect manner, but rather with a direct and open reduction of salaries or with an increase of emigration to areas offering better possibilities.”

Sir, twenty years later those observations are still valid, and way too little has been done to solve the challenges.

Now add to that the fact that even though Eurozone sovereigns take on debt in a currency not denominated in their own domestic printable one, EU authorities have assigned a risk weight of 0% to all of them. That all points to that it will end badly.

So Sir, though Martin Wolf raises many more or less valid alerts and gives some recommendations worth heeding, he should also be thinking about how to get the euro out from that “0% risk” death-trap corner into which it has been painted.

@PerKurowski

What I as a former Executive Director, pray that any new President of the World Bank understands

A letter to the Financial Times

Sir, I was an ED at WB from November 2002 until October 2004. During that time Basel II was being discussed. It was approved in June 2004. 

I was against the basic principles of these regulations that had begun with the Basel Accord of 1988, Basel I. That should be clear from Op-Eds I had published earlier, transcripts of my statements at the WB Board, and in the letters that I wrote and FT published during that time. Here is a brief summary of all that 

Since then I haven't changed my mind... that package of bank regulations is almost unimaginable bad.

I pray the next president of the world’s premier development bank, whoever he is, and wherever he comes from, at least, as a minimum minimorum, understands:

First, that risk-taking is the oxygen of any development, and therefore the regulators’ risk adverse risk weighted capital requirements, will distort against banks taking the risks that help to push our economies forward. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.”, John A Shedd.

Second, that what’s perceived as risky is much less dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe, and so that these regulations doom us to especially large bank crises, because of especially large exposures to what is especially perceived (or decreed) as safe, against especially little capital.

Sir, would you not agree that mine is a quite reasonable wish?

@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

Imposing a marginal minuscule cost per web-ad-message could perhaps help level the playing field for the boring truths against the much more fun fake news.

Sir, Tim Harford expresses it clearly when he writes, “Fake news itself does not pose an existential threat either to democracy or the free press. What does pose such a threat is a draconian response from governments.” “There is no need to panic about fake news” January 5.

Indeed but Basic Skepticism 101 courses are still much needed. I have for decades objected to that draconian response from regulators that states: “We will make your banks safer with risk weighted capital requirements”, which they based on the loony idea that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what is perceived as safe. 

Of course that is as fake as a regulation can be. Not only does it distort the allocation of credit to the real economy but it also puts bank crises on steroids. As for now, that only guarantees especially large crisis, because of especially large exposures, to what is especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

Hartford also worries about “that there is far too little transparency over political advertising in the digital age: we don’t know who is paying for what message to be shown to whom”. I agree but one important cause for that is that there is no marginal cost to be paid by those spreading news and ads on the web.

If every ad messaging on the web forced the messenger to pay a minuscule amount per message, then we would be more carefully targeted, meaning wasting less of our limited attention span, and it would be less easy for fake-more-fun-news messengers to compete with “real” not-as-fun-news outfits, if there now is such a thing.

PS. If those revenues help fund an unconditional universal basic income, then it would be even better. 

@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 Fed and bank regulators have done many times more harm to the real economy than the political leadership, President Trump included.

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes:“It is clear that the power of monetary policy to support the real economy has diminished. In lieu of better political leadership, the key task for central bankers in the years to come may be to roll up their sleeves and do the gritty work of bolstering not the markets, but Main Street.” “Central bankers refocus on Main Street” December 31.

That’s not likely to happen. The Fed and bank regulators have clearly evidenced they are not up to that task. Without the slightest consideration to how banks are to serve the real economy, and its needs for development, with their risk weighted capital requirements for banks, they blocked “the risky” Main Street’s access to bank credit, in order to favor all that which was perceived (or decreed) as safe… like residential mortgages (and the sovereign) 

Now every one of them will eagerly be trying to escape his or her responsibility, by blaming Donald Trump, who in many ways is acting as a perfect godsend scapegoat.

PS. “We are almost 10 years into a recovery cycle — the time when economic slowdowns typically occur”. That might be so, but it still sounds so expertly besserwisser. 

"Paga-peo" a Venezuelan name for a scapegoat

@PerKurowski