Thursday, September 27, 2012
Without any type of bank regulations those perceived as “risky” would pay higher interest rates, have access to smaller loans, and need to accept harsher terms than those perceived as “not-risky”. And that is how it should be, anything else would not make any sense.
But with the current capital requirements based on ex-ante perceived risk, those officially perceived ex-ante as “risky”, like small businesses and entrepreneurs, need to pay even higher interests, have their access to bank credit even more curtailed, and need to accept even harsher terms, than would be the case without any bank regulations… and that my friend, does not seem ethical to me.
Nor does it make any sense... since never ever have major bank crisis resulted from excessive bank exposure to what was perceived ex ante as “not- risky”, these have all resulted, no exclusions, from excessive exposure to what was ex-ante perceived as “absolutely not-risky”.
PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board
And, of course, these dumb regulations can only help to increase the cliff between the “not-risky-haves” and the “risky-not-haves”
And, of course, these dumb regulations, can only curtail the job creation powers of small businesses and entrepreneurs.