Friday, February 22, 2013

If bank regulators head east, when they should head west, is that a minor mistake?

All bank crises in the world has resulted from something perceived as safer that it really was, and no bank crisis ever from excessive exposures to what was perceived as risky when booked. 

And so therefore when the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board set up bank regulations known as Basel II and that as its pillar has capital requirements which are much lower for bank exposures to what is perceived as to “The Infallible” than for what is perceived as “The Risky”, then it would seem they are heading in the totally wrong direction. 

And so of course we got ourselves a traditional bank crisis because of excessive exposures to assets perceived as safe like AAA rated securities, sovereigns like Greece and Spanish real estate. 

And those regulations also cause that “The Risky”, those already discriminated against on account of that perception, end up paying even higher risk-premiums, getting even smaller loans and having to accept even harsher contract terms. 

And so of course making it more difficult for "The Risky", like small and medium businesses and entrepreneurs, we can not get our real economy going, so as to create the jobs we need, especially for our young. 

I have not been able to extract an answer on this from the regulators for many years now, and now they are threatening to make it even worse when, in Basel III, they are concocting some liquidity requirements also based on perceived risks. Can you please help me with that?