September 2, 1986 was the tragic night when Paul A. Volcker, in London, gave in to (insane) European bank regulators.

Paul A. Volcker in “Keeping at it” penned together with Christine Harper writes on bank regulations and capital requirements the following:

"The travails of First Pennsylvania and Continental Illinois, the massive threat posed by the Latin American crisis, and the obvious strain on the capital of thrift institutions had an impact on thinking over time, but strong action was competitively (and politically) stalled by the absence of an international consensus.

An approach toward dealing with that problem was taken by the G-10 central banking group meeting under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. A new Basel Committee would assess existing standards and practices in a search for an analytic understanding.

Progress was slow… 

The US practice had been to asses capital adequacy by using a simple “leverage ratio”-in other words, the bank’s total assets based compared with the margin of capital available to absorb any losses on those assets. (Historically, before, the 1931 banking collapse, a ten percent ratio was considered normal)

The Europeans, as a group, firmly insisted upon a “risk-based” approach, seemingly more sophisticated because it calculated assets based on how risky they seemed to be. They felt it was common sense that certain kind of assets –certainly including domestic government bonds but also home mortgages and other sovereign debt- shouldn’t require much if any capital. Commercial loans, by contrast, would have strict and high capital requirements, whatever the credit rating might be.

Both approaches could claim to have strengths. Each had weaknesses. How to solve the impasse?

At the end of a European tour in September in 1986, I planned to stop in London for an informal dinner with the Bank of England’s then governor Robin Leigh-Pemberton. In that comfortable setting without a lot of forethought, I suggested to him that if it was necessary to reach agreement, I’d try to sell the risk-based approach to my US colleagues.

Over time, the inherent problems with the risk-based approach became apparent. The assets assigned the lowest risk, for which capital requirements were therefore low or nonexistent, were those that had the most political support: sovereign credits and home mortgages. Ironically, losses on those two types of assets would fuel the global crisis in 2008 and a subsequent European crisis in 2011."

Insane? Yes! 

How can one believe that what bankers perceive as risky is more dangerous to bank systems than what bankers perceive as safe? 

Should it not be clear that dooms our bank system to especially severe crises, resulting from excessive exposures the what ex ante is perceived as especially safe, but that  ex post might not be, against especially little capital?

These self-nominated besserwisser experts had (have) just not the faintest understanding of conditional probabilities.

September 2? From here

Had there been a Basel Committee on Tennis Supervision, Roger Federer would be history by now.

The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) in order to make bank systems safer imposed risk weighted bank capital requirements. The lower the perceived risk the lower the capital the higher the leverage allowed. The higher the perceived risk the more capital the lower leverage allowed. 

For example, in Basel II of June 2004 they held that against any private sector asset that was rated AAA to AA banks needed to hold 1.6% in capital, meaning they were allowed to leverage 62.5 times. Against any private sector asset that was rated below BB- banks needed to hold 12% in capital, meaning they were allowed to leverage 8.3 times. 

In terms of tennis that would mean that those players ranked the highest would be able to play with the best rackets, and be allowed many more serves than those player ranked lower. Someone not only unranked but also lousy player like me would be happy to have one serve and at least be allowed a to uses a ping-pong racket if playing against Roger Federer. 

But what would have happened if there had been a Basel Committee on Tennis Supervision that implemented these regulations?

To make a long story short, the best tennis players would have it easier and easier to win, and would have less and less need to practice. Those betting on them would bet ever-larger amounts at ever-lower odds… until “Boom!” (2008 Crisis) suddenly the best player was discovered to completely have lost his ability to play and lost in three blank sets to a newcomer.

PS. Here is somewhat more extensive aide memoire on the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

If ever allowed, the following would be my brief testimony about what caused the 2008 bank crisis

The following, if I am ever allowed to give it, as so many would not like to hear it, would be my brief testimony on what caused the 2008 bank crisis 

Sir, as I have learned to understand it, the 2008 crisis resulted from a combination of 3 factors.

The first were some very minimal capital requirements for some assets that had been approved, starting in 1988 with Basel I, for sovereigns and the financing of residential housing; and made extensive in Basel II of 2004 to private sectors assets with good credit ratings.

These allowed banks then to earn much higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity on some assets than on other, which introduced a serious distortion. After Basel II the allowed bank equity leverages were almost limitless when lending to “sound” (or friendly) sovereigns; 36 times to 1 when financing residential housing; and over 60 to 1 with private sector assets rated AAA to AA. Just the signature, on some type of guarantee by an AAA rated, like AIG, also allowed an operation to become leveraged over 60 times to 1. 

The second was Basel II’ extensive conditioning of the capital requirements for banks to the decisions of some very few (3) human fallible credit rating agencies. As I so many times warned about (in a letter published in FT January 2003 and even clearer in a written statement at the World Bank) this introduced a very serious systemic risk.

The third factor is a malignant element present in the otherwise beneficial process of securitization. The profits of that process are a function of how much implied and perceived risk-reduction takes place. To securitize something safe to something safer does not yield great returns for the securitization process. Neither does to securitize something risky into something less risky. 

What produces BIG profits is to securitize something really risky, and sell it off as something really safe. Like awarding really lousy subprime mortgages and packaging them in securities that could achieve an AAA rating. A 11%, 30 years, $300.000 mortgage, packaged into a security rated AAA and sold at a 6 percent yield, can be sold for $510.000, and provide those involved in the process an instantaneous profit of $210.000

With those facts it should be easy to understand the explosiveness of mixing the temptations of limitless, 36, and more than 60 to 1 allowed bank equity leverages providing huge expected risk adjusted ROEs; with subjecting the risk-assesment too much to the criteria of too few; with the huge profit margins when securitizing something very risky into something “very safe”. Here follows some indicative consequences:

As far as I have been able to gather, over a period of about 2 years, over a trillion dollars of the much larger production of subprime mortgages dressed up in AAA-AA ratings, ended up only in Europe. Add to that all the American investment banks’ holdings of this shady product.

To that we should also add Europe’s own problems with mortgages, like those in Spain derived in much by an excessive use of “teaser interest rates”, low the first years and then shooting up with vengeance.

And sovereigns like Greece, would never have been able to take on so much debt if banks (especially those in the Eurozone) would not have been able to leverage their equity so much with these loans.

Without those consequences there would have been no 2008 crisis, and that is an absolute fact.

The problem though with this explanation is that many, especially bank regulators, especially bank bashers, especially equity minimizing bankers, especially inattentive finance academicians, especially faulty besserwissers (those who love the sophisticated taste of words like "derivatives"), they all do not like this explanation, so it is not even discussed.

The real question though is: Who is the guiltiest party, those who fell for the temptations, or those who allowed the creation of the temptations?

I mean how far can you go blaming the children from eating some of that deliciously looking chocolate cake you left on the table, at their reach?

PS. Please do not categorize misregulation as deregulation. 

PS. Here is a current summary of why the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, is utter and dangerous nonsense.

PS. And here is my letter to the Financial Stability Board that was officially received. Will it be answered?