Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Are you one of them?
The pillar of current bank regulations is risk weighted capital requirements for banks: More perceived credit risk more capital – less perceived credit risk less capital.
Below what those who believe risk weighted capital requirement for banks is smart, must be thinking. Are you one of them?
That though with banks so many other aspects are risky, like the possibility of cyber attacks, the only thing that matters are credit risks.
That even though banks perceive credit risks, and adjust for that with risk premiums and the size of their exposures, that’s not enough, banks must also adjust for the same perceived risks in their capital.
That lending little at high-risk premiums to something perceived risky, is riskier than lending a lot at very low risk premiums to something perceived safe.
That bankers, no matter what Mark Twain thinks, love to lend out the umbrella when it rains and abhor doing so when the sun shines.
That it is the specific credit risk of the assets that matter, and not how banks manage those risks.
That the expected credit risks are good estimators of the unexpected losses banks need to hold capital against.
That the safer an asset is perceived the less is its potential to deliver unexpected losses.
That the riskier and asset is perceived the greater is its potential to deliver unexpected losses.
That as long as banks do not fail, the rest, like if they allocate bank credit efficiently to the real economy or not, does not matter.
That even though a bank is required to hold more capital lending to someone perceive risky than when lending to the AAArisktocracy, that has nothing to do with inequality.
That even if a sovereign depends on its citizens, the sovereign can have a zero risk weight while the citizens, like SMEs and entrepreneur should have a 100 percent risk weight.
That though all major bank crises have occurred because of excessive exposures to what was erroneously perceived as safe, that has nothing to do with tomorrow's bank crises.
That even though no major crisis has have occurred because of excessive exposures to what ex ante was perceived as risky, that has nothing to do with tomorrow's bank crises.
That if you, to the banker’s natural risk aversion, add on the regulators natural risk aversion, you will not risk getting an excessive risk aversion that could be dangerous for the real economy.
That if the perceived credit risk is correct, it does not matter how much importance you give to that perception.
That if you play around with the odds of roulette it will survive as a viable game