In other words, it signifies a regulatory subsidy to those already benefitted by the market and banks from being perceived as “not risky”, and a regulatory tax on those already being taxed by the market and banks because they are perceived as "risky".
And that discrimination against what is perceived as risky, must of course negatively impact the economy and the creation of jobs, which both thrive precisely based on the risk-taking.
And all for no good purpose at all, because never ever has a major bank crisis resulted from excessive exposures to what was ex ante perceived as risky.
And, if regulators absolutely must interfere, and must to do so based on perceived risks then why not do so based on how bankers react to perceived risk. Although in that case it would seem that the capital requirements for banks should be higher for any asset perceived as “absolutely not-risky” and lower for any asset perceived as “risky”.
Also as is, no one has any idea of what the real market interest rates are. For instance what would be the UK Treasury rate if banks needed to hold as much capital when lending to the UK Treasury, than when lending to a UK citizen?