Saturday, April 18, 2015
The pillar of current bank regulations is risk weighted capital requirements for banks; or more exactly portfolio invariant credit risk-weighted equity requirements for banks. It signifies banks are allowed to hold much less equity against assets perceived as safe, than against assets perceived as risky.
Though intuitively it might sound extremely correct, it is extremely flawed, primarily for three reasons:
First, it just doesn’t make any sense from the perspective of making the banking system safe, since all major bank crises have resulted from excessive exposure to something perceived as safe but that ex post turned out not to be; and none from excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as risky.
Second, allowing banks to leverage their equity, and the support the society lends them, differently, depending on perceived credit risk already cleared for by other means, introduces a tremendous distortion in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.
Third, by discriminating the access to bank credit against those who by being perceived as risky are already naturally discriminated against, it kills equal opportunities and thereby fosters inequality.
I have voiced my furious objections to that regulation, for way over a decade, to no avail.
The indifference with which my arguments have been met, by the Basel Committee, the Financial Stability Board, the IMF, the Fed, the Bank of England and all other institutions related to bank regulations; plus that of medias such as the Financial Times, has undoubtedly been a source of frustration. And worst has it been when I am told that my questioning is obsessive, something which I have never negated, but when I have always felt that the way they have ignored this issue shows even more obsessiveness.
But, little by little, I have started to appreciate the fact that being ignored, has added a much more important aspect to my criticism. Had regulators accepted and corrected for their mistakes immediately, that would have undoubtedly been good. But at the same time that would also perhaps have shed less light on the importance issue of how little contestability and accountability there exists in institutions ruled by a self-appointed technocrats.
And so, when the world wakes up to the horrendous implications of this regulatory risk aversion, it might hopefully also be able to wake up and correct for the horrible regulatory procedures... and for the sort of bias in favor of regulators that many in the media show.
Then perhaps the SMEs and entrepreneurs could get a real hearing about their difficulties to access bank credit in Basel, in Davos or in Washington during the Spring or Annual Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank.