The short and true story of the financial crisis

This crisis originated in what are supposedly very safe assets, houses and mortgages, in what is supposedly the strongest and financially safest country, the USA, and in what are supposedly the absolute safest instruments, the triple-A rated. When we then hear even Nobel Prize winners talking about excessive-risk taking, it should be clear to all of us that something very serious has happened to risk. It happened in Basel.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, in their irrational fear of bank defaults, while forcing the banks to have 8 percent of equity when lending to “risky” small companies or entrepreneurs, completely ignored the fact that bank crisis originate only where ex-ante risks are perceived as low, and allowed the banks to hold only 1.6 percent in capital when investing in triple-A rated securities, like those backed with lousily awarded mortgages to the subprime sector, or when lending to sovereigns rated A+ to A like Greece, and which implied allowing the banks to leverage 62.5 to 1, 

Of course, needing less capital when doing business with the “less risky”, made the profitability of bank business with the “less risky” shoot up to the skies, and so the banks forgot all the small businesses and entrepreneurs, and gorged up anything that had a good rating on it… until they choked on the triple-As and the Greeces of the world.

God make us daring!

Members of the Basel Committee consider yourselves insulted and challenged

The Basel Committee of Banking Supervision, that extremely important global regulatory agency, instructed the credit rating agencies to set up their warnings sign of perceived risk of default, ordered the banks to follow these signs, and then proceeded to calibrate the capital requirements of banks as if the banks did not see them. Somewhat like setting up traffic-lights all over town and synchronizing them under the assumption that drivers are blind.

Of course, if the regulators wanted to calibrate adequately for the default risk of any bank exposure to any credit rating, they could only do so by taking into account how the banks would react to those credit ratings…as well as considering the banks’ relative exposure to the different credit ratings. If a bank lends only to triple-A rated clients then its systemic danger, is only represented by its triple-A rated clients.

Since perceived risk is cleared in the market through the interest rates charged, this has signified that the relative profitability for the banks of lending to what is perceived as not risky, like what has a triple-A rating, increased dramatically, while the relative profitability for the banks of lending to what is perceived as more risky, like unrated small business and entrepreneurs, decreased.

Knowing as we should know that no bank crisis has ever resulted from excessive lending to what is perceived risky and that they have all resulted from excessive investments to what is perceived ex-ante as not risky, applying the Basel Committee’s current regulatory paradigm of capital requirements based on risk results clearly in counterfactual and stupid regulations. Also, since the most important role of commercial banks is to help satisfy the financial needs of those who are perceived as more risky and have not yet access to the capital markets, the odious discrimination against these clients (who are already paying much higher interest rates into the capital of banks) is doubly stupid.

If by any chance the issue of regulating on climate change would fall in the lap of an entity like the Basel Committee… we would all be toast.

For over a decade, even as an Executive Director of the World Bank 2002-2004 and always under my own name and indicating my email, I have presented many arguments against the current central regulatory paradigm use by the Basel Committee, that of capital requirements based on perceived risk of default, and called it stupid, stupid, stupid!

And by the way, if the regulators absolutely have an existential need to calibrate for risks, what is so particularly risky with defaults? Is not the risk of not creating jobs or the risk of increased un-sustainability worse? Does not just to think of a world without defaults make you shiver?

Having said that, not once, in all these years, has anyone identified as having anything to do with the Basel Committee ever denied my accusations, presented any counter-argument, or shown the least willingness to discuss the issue. Is it not strange? Could it really be that little me is right and these so expert experts are so utterly wrong? I dare them to prove me wrong!

In October 2010, during the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund I publicly asked “Right now, when a bank lends money to a small business or an entrepreneur it needs to put up 5 TIMES more capital than when lending to a triple-A rated clients. When is the IMF to speak out against such odious discrimination that affects development and job creation, for no good particular reason since bank and financial crisis have never occurred because of excessive investments or lending to clients perceived as risky?” Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF’s Managing Director, answered in no uncertain terms that “capital requirement discrimination has no reason to be”, and so it seems that there are also other who agree with that the Basel Committee stands there completely naked without a functional regulatory paradigm.

In this moment when an extremely serious financial crisis affects the world and when the Basel Committee is digging us even deeper in the hole they placed us in, would we all not feel more comfortable if the Basel Committee at least agreed to a public debate on what I criticize?

Therefore…members and professionals of the Basel Committee consider yourselves slapped on the face with a glove and dared to accept the challenge. Wear with dignity your cones of shame!

Want a more detailed explanation? Listen to this home made video
http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2010/09/the-financial-crisis-simple-why-and.html

Per Kurowski   @Per Kurowski

PS. I appreciate any help I could get in provoking the Basel Committee to respond to this challenge

PS. Risk taking is the oxygen of any development. God Make Us Daring!

PS. Has the Basel Committee just suffered the Nut Island effect? 

PS. US Congress, what are you up to? Over 2.000 pages of financial reform and you do not even mention once the Basel Committee which has so messed up the capital requirements of your banks.

PS. A small numeric example: If banks were allowed to leverage only 12.5 to 1 when lending to triple-A rated clients, which is what they were allowed to leverage when lending to small businesses under Basel II, then if they made a .5% margin, they would obtain return on capital of 6.25% lending to AAAs, decent but nothing to write home about, less pay bonuses on. But since they were allowed to leverage 62.5 to 1 they could, with the same .5% margin then make a return of capital of 31.25%. No wonder banks stampeded wanting the AAAs!

PS. A visitor from outer space, observing that banks are required to have 8% of equity when lending to a small businesses, but zero% when lending to a triple-A rated sovereign as the US, would he be at fault thinking he had landed on a communistic planet? With such an arbitrary discrimination in favor of the public sector, do you really know the real market interest rates on public debt?

PS. Since I am no regulator, or a PhD with published research on the subject, here are some of my early opinions on these regulations, which should evidence that I am far from being  very few pieces just another Monday morning quarterback:

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/
http://financefordevelopment.blogspot.com/
http://baselcommittee.blogspot.com/
http://teawithft.blogspot.com/search/label/subprime%20banking%20regulations
http://www.theaaa-bomb.blogspot.com/

We are all being subject to a “Razzle Dazzle 'em, Bazzle III 'em” scheme

In Basel III, as in Basel II, the capital requirements are set “in relation to risk-weighted assets (RWAs)” even though it was the risk weights which proved to be most wrong.

It was a low risk weight of only 20% which generated a capital requirement of only 1.6 percent (.08 x .2) allowing banks to leverage 62.5 times to 1, which drove the banks to stampede after the triple-A rated securities collateralized with lousily awarded mortgages to the subprime sector.

Also if a bank lends to a small business then it needs 8 percent in capital but if it instead lends that money to the government of a sovereign rated AAA to AA then the bank needs no capital for the risk-weighted assets since the weight is 0%... lunacy!

Since the risk weights have not been modified at all in Basel III, let me assure you that the Basel Committee still has no idea about what they are doing. Frightening!

Basel III does mention that “These capital requirements are supplemented by a non-risk-based leverage ratio that will serve as a backstop to the risk-based measures described” but since that supplement seemingly will be small and what really counts are the marginal capital requirements for different assets Basel III does not provide a solution.

The Basel Committee is still so fixated with looking at the gorilla called “perceived risk” so as to completely lose track of the ball.

No financial or bank crisis has ever occurred from something ex-ante perceived as risky they have all resulted, no exceptions, from excessive lending or investment in something perceived as not risky.

Basel III still constitutes an arbitrary and regressive discrimination of small businesses and entrepreneurs whose needs we in fact most want our banks to attend. With the same risk-weight discriminations, the higher the capital requirements are, the higher the real effective discrimination.

Banks were authorized by the Basel Committee to lend to Greece leveraging 62.5 to 1! Now even after being sunk, we are still in the hands of exactly the same banks with exactly the same regulators following exactly the same fundamentally faulty regulatory paradigm… Help!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle, Razzle Bazzle 'em,

Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are

Long as you keep 'em way off balance

How can they spot you've got no talent

Razzle Dazzle 'em, Bazzle III 'em,

And they'll make you a star!

The six questions the Financial Regulatory Establishment refuses to answer.

1.- Knowing as we know that all bank or financial crisis have had their origin in excessive investments in what was ex-ante is perceived as having no risk... can you please explain the rationale behind a regulatory system that by means of allowing much lower capital requirements when lending or investing in anything is related to triple-A rated operations, provides the banks further incentives to accumulate excesses in what ex-ante is perceived as having lower risks?

2.- Knowing as we know that a perfect credit rating, though providing some useful information for capital allocation, provides none of the two sides in a operation with any real profit, something which only wrong risk appreciations can do, the wronger the larger the profits for the side that benefits... what is the rationale behind empowering the credit rating agencies with asymmetrical risk information oligopolies which dramatically increases the financial system´s exposure to catastrophic systemic risk?

3.- What is the rationale of a regulatory system where if the bank lends to an unrated small business or entrepreneur it needs to have 8 percent in capital but, if it instead lends to the government of an AAA rated sovereign, like the USA, so that government bureaucrats lend or give stimulus to the unrated small businesses and entrepreneurs, the banks need to hold zero capital? Is this not plain pro too-obese-to-succeed government regulation? What do the interest rates on public debt really signal with this type of regulations interfering?

4.- If a bank was required to have the same capital when lending to a country with a credit rating like that of Greece before year end 2009, as when lending to a small unrated businesses, then it could leverage itself 12.5 to 1. If it then made a spread of .5 percent when lending to a Greece it would obtain a return on capital of 6.25percent per year. But since the banks were allowed to do the above with only 1.6 percent in capital they could leverage their capital 62.5 to 1 and earn 31.25 percent on capital. Is this not exactly the stuff from which unbelievable bonuses are made of? Is this not exactly the growth hormones that results in too-big-to-fail banks?

5.- How come when regulating the banks the Basel Committee does not establish what is the purpose of banks? Is that not a pre-requisite for adequate regulation? When you regulate traffic it is to facilitate the traffic between two points... not to guarantee that the road will never need maintenance. Do the regulators really aspire for a world where there are no bank defaults? I shiver at the thought!

6.- Institutionally and given that the world will be in need of more global regulations, how is the oversight of the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board managed? To whom are they transparently accountable? I ask this because for instance if we had delegated the solving of global warming into a global institution that made mistakes like those made in the regulation of banks... there´s no question we would all be toast.

The questions at the IMF blog

PS. The Link no longer works https://blogs.imf.org/2010/08/26/a-problem-shared-is-a-problem-halved-the-g-20’s-“mutual-assessment-process”/#comment-2699

What do the financial regulations say about the mental capacity of the regulators, and ours?

1st Quadrangle: Excessive lending to those who are perceived as having a low risk of default:

2nd Quadrangle: Excessive lending to those who are perceived as having a high risk of default:

3rd Quadrangle: Insufficient lending to those who are perceived as having a low risk of default:

4th Quadrangle: Insufficient lending to those who are perceived as having a high risk of default:

Let us analyze which role each quadrangle plays in causing a financial crisis.

By far, the most likely and perhaps even exclusive cause of a financial crisis is found in the first quadrangle that of excessive investments to what was perceived ex-ante as not being risky.

Next, insomuch as it could cause a problematic lack of economic development, we could mention quadrangle 4 that of insufficient investments to those representing an ex-ante higher risk of default.

Quadrangle 3 that of insufficient lending to those who are perceived as having a low risk of default is quite unlikely to occur.

Finally, what really never ever causes a financial crisis, as it goes against the coward nature of capitals and bankers, is quadrangle 2 represented by an excessive lending to those who are perceived as having a high risk of default.

If we then observe how the current regulators have imposed very low capital requirements, zero to 1.6 percent on the quadrangles represented by those being perceived ex-ante as having a low risk of default, and a much higher though quite reasonable 8 percent on the quadrangles represented by those who ex-ante are perceived as having a high risk of default, what does this say about the mental clarity of the current regulators?

I can only conclude in tha they are thick as a brick! And so are we, allowing these regulators to play out, totally unsupervised their bedroom fantasies of a world without any bank failures.

What on earth are we to do with a world where no banks fail when doing their jobs and we all might fail because banks are not doing their job?

My response to the G-20 SME Finance Challenge

Friends,

The Group of 20 and Ashoka’s Changemakers, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, launched the G-20 SME Finance Challenge, where competitors are to submit proposals on solutions or projects for how public finance can unlock private finance to small and medium enterprise on a sustainable and scalable basis. 

The goal is to identify catalytic and well-targeted public interventions to unlock private finance for SMEs. Maximizing leverage of scarce public resources is at the core of the Challenge.

The following is my proposal:

The taking of risks is the oxygen of any development!

We need to eliminate the regressive discrimination of SMEs caused by imposing different capital requirements on banks based on perceived risk of default. Its primary reason is that risk of default of a debtor is a natural, manageable and secondary degree risk that banks and society need to take. As a bonus it also corrects a huge regulatory error that only increases the possibilities of systemic disasters.”

Here follows some of the questions and answer given on the entry form:

What makes your innovative solution unique? 

It rejects completely the first pillar of the current regulatory paradigm developed by the Basel Committee, that of construing “safer” banks by means of discriminating precisely against those whom, because of their limited access to capital markets, the banks should most help with their lending, the SMEs. 

To discriminate against the more “risky” while favoring those who because of their good credit ratings most likely already have access to the capital markets, is nonsensical. 

It is like the handicap officials on a racetrack taking off weights from the stronger horses and placing them on the weaker. It could only have been thought up by regulatory zealots who, shortsightedly, have only the immediate safeness of the banks on their minds and care little or nothing about development and banks’ real long term purpose. 

If you consider how unelected officials are influencing in a quite non-transparent way how global finances operate, I also hope this proposal helps to open up a much needed debate on regulatory transparency.

How does your proposed innovation leverage public intervention in catalyzing private SME finance?

If a bank was required to hold the same capital requirement when lending to a triple-A rated company than it has to hold when lending to an SME, namely 8 percent, it could leverage its capital 12.5 times to 1. If the bank then made a margin of .5 percent when lending to the triple-A rated, it would obtain a total return on capital of 6.25 percent. 

But, since the regulators allow the banks to hold only 1.6 percent in capital when lending to the triple-A rated, and so that they could therefore leverage themselves 62.5 to 1, the total capital return on this lending for the banks becomes instead 31.25 percent. 

To make up for that difference of 25% of regulatory advantage awarded to the triple-A lending (31.25-6.25), and be able to compete for access to bank credit, the SMEs therefore need to pay an additional interest rate of 2 percent (25/12.5), on top of the higher risk premiums they are anyhow charged with because of their higher perceived and real risk. 

Leveling the playing field, by eliminating this arbitrary regressive and discriminatory regulatory tax on risk that affects many of those accessing bank credits, is the most important public intervention needed in order to catalyze private SME financing. 

As an important bonus it would also remove the regulatory incentives which caused the stampede after triple-As in the market and thereby originated the current crisis. 

What barriers does your proposed solution address? Describe how so? 

SMEs are more prone to be considered as risky. Therefore the elimination of the current regulatory de-facto tax on the perceived risk of default will help to decrease the disincentives for the banks to serve these clients; or, in other words, it will increase the competitiveness of SMEs in their race against all those perceived to represent lesser risk for access to bank credits.

In the same vein the natural higher transaction costs for financial intermediaries to lend to SME’s would cease to be further compounded by the costs derived from higher discriminatory capital requirements. 

Additionally it would help to fight the excessive asymmetrical empowerment of the credit rating agencies as credit information providers, and thereby help to reestablish banking as a truly accountable profession that is not induced to rely robotically on a general type of GPS guidance system. In other words, it will provide an opportunity for bankers to be bankers again.

Provide empirical evidence of your proposed solution’s success/impact at present: 

This should be superfluous. The genesis of the current financial crisis was the stampede after the incentivized and open to capture triple-A ratings; and which since there were naturally not enough of these AAAs to satisfy the demand, being the AAAs in many ways only fidgets of imagination, this led the markets to provide some Potemkin ratings instead. 

It suffices to know that since capital and bankers are by nature coward, the world would have even been better off, if totally opposite capital requirements had been imposed on the banks, meaning capital requirements which progressively discriminated against those who represent lesser perceived risk. In such a case there would have been less rush after AAAs, while the lending to “the risky” would never have occurred in volumes that could systemically endanger the system.

All banks crisis in history have always resulted from excessive lending to what is perceived ex-ante as not being risky and no bank crisis has ever occurred because of excessive lending to anything perceived ex-ante as risky. Do you need more empirical evidence than that?

In 1999 I wrote “The possible Big Bang that scares me the most is the one that could happen the day those genius bank regulators in Basel, playing Gods, manage to introduce a systemic error in the financial system, which will cause the collapse”… and indeed the AAA-bomb exploded.

How many firms do you expect to reach?

All SMEs, most of them are not even rated.

What is the volume of private SME finance you aim to catalyze? 

The current capital requirements stimulated trillions of dollars to finance triple-A rated securities collateralized with badly awarded subprime mortgages in the US. I would be satisfied if it could help to catalyze just a decent fraction of that amount in new lending to the SMEs.

What time frame will be required to reach these targets? 

The market lost their trillions in about three years, from mid 2004 until mid 2007. The speed of the proposed adjustment should be further studied carefully monitored in order to avoid any problems in the middle of an economic crisis. 

I envisage the possibility of an immediate reduction of the maximum capital requirements for banks on all lending from 8 percent to 4 percent and then, over a period of 4 to 6 years elevating it to a 8-10 percent capital requirement, on any lending to all type of private borrowers. 

The adjustment of the capital requirements for public debt, and which for triple-As currently amazingly requires no capital at all, could take longer time though. Where would interest rates on public debt be without this arbitrary and non-transparent regulatory subsidy?

Does your innovation seek to have an impact on public policy?

Yes it looks precisely to correct an utterly wrong public policy.

What might prevent your innovative solution from succeeding?

From success, nothing! Though from being implemented, the difficulties with thick-as-a-brick regulators who are unable to break free from their current regulatory paradigm and who have a vested interest of remaining in total control of their own mutual admiration club.

Tell us about the social impact of your innovation. 

Since among the small SMEs we probably have our best chance of finding our next generation of decent jobs, the social impact of this innovative regulatory stepping back cannot be overstated. 

How many SMEs are there and how many more could there be if regulators did not discriminate against them? That is the number of SMEs that will benefit!

Demonstrate how your proposed solution has the capacity to graduate from dependence on public finance. What is the time frame? 

Currently if a bank lends to a SME it is required to have 8 percent in capital but, if it lends to an A-rated government so that this government in its turn can lend or give stimulus to a SME, then it needs zero capital. Could there be a more direct way of decreasing the dependence on public finance…immediately?

Please tell us if your proposed solution aims to scale up through a high growth sector, expand immediately to multiple sectors, and/or scale up geographically.

Absolutely, it aims to be applied to all the countries which have fallen in the current Basel Committee risk-adverseness trap. The fact that many emerging countries did not suffer so much from these regulations has a lot to do with the absence in these countries of AAA rated clients.

Please tell us what kind of partnerships, if any, could be critical to the greater success and sustainability of your innovation. 

We need a complete new crew of bank regulators with diverse backgrounds and able to break out from the current paradigm. 

We also need legislators that dare to face the problem. The final statement of the recent G20 meeting in Toronto mentions the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 11 times and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) 27 times. But, in the 2319 pages of the Financial Regulatory Reform approved by the US Congress, those entities are not mentioned even once. Such disconnect is unmanageable!

In these days many, including Nobel-prize winners, speak about the excessive risk-taking of banks, while turning a blind eye to the fact that the crisis originated entirely in triple-A operations and so that we could just as well speak about an excessive and regulatory induced risk adverseness. I acknowledge though that this proposal is indeed noisy and difficult to move forward… and so a decided support from sturdy and eager group of changemakers is of course much needed and also much appreciated.

Friends, as you know I have been shouting about this issue for years, to very little avail, since most prefer either not to criticize the regulatory establishment or, for their own piece of mind, to think the regulatory establishment incapable of being as thick-as-a-brick as I hold them to be. In this respect, as you can understand, I very much look forward to the comments from the qualified jurors and commentators… some of whom might have some conflicts of interest on this issue.

By the way, since I am not a PhD, not a financial operator, not a banker and not a bank regulator, and just in case you should think that my criticism, as often happens, is facilitated by a lack of deeper knowledge on the subject, let me just copy below one example of the many formal and informal statements that I gave at the board of the World Bank as an Executive Director (1 of 24) on the subject. In October 2004 I wrote:

“We believe that much of the world’s financial markets are currently being dangerously overstretched through an exaggerated reliance on intrinsically weak financial models that are based on very short series of statistical evidence and very doubtful volatility assumptions.”

Who knows, perhaps after this proposal even the World Bank will invite me to discuss my objections to Basel regulations. Last time I did so, in May 2003, what little I then told them, sort of sent me off to their own Siberia.

Regards,

Per

The Basel Committee makes small businesses and entrepreneurs pay much more for their bank credit

When compared to a regulatory system with equal bank capital requirements for all type of assets, the Basel system that imposes different requirements based on some arbitrary risk-weights related to credit ratings, implies that a small business needs to pay about 2 percent (200 basis points) more in interest rates in order to stay competitive when accessing bank credit.

Suppose a bank feels that the normal risk premium should be .5 percent for an AAA rated company and 4 percent for a small business. If the bank was required to have 8 percent for both assets and could therefore leverage itself 12.5 to 1, then the expected before credit loss margin on bank equity for the AAAs would be 6.25% and for the small business 50%, a difference of 43.75%.

But, since the bank is allowed by Basel to hold only 1.6 percent against AAA rated assets, which implies permitting a leverage of 62.5 to 1, the previous margin 6.25% margin for AAA assets becomes a whopping 31.25%, which now implies a difference in the margins on equity of only 18.75% when compared to that generated by the small businesses.

In order to restore the initial required competitive margin difference of 43.75, now only 18.75% the small businesses will have to generate for the banks an additional gross margin of 25 percent, which, divided by the 12.5 to 1 leverage allowed for their class of assets, comes out to be the additional 2 percent in interest rate referred to.

Of course a complete analysis would require considering many other dynamic factors, but those would only help to fog the basic truth that our regulators are discriminating against those the banks are most supposed to serve.

What will it take for the regulator to understand that this is no minor problem, especially when so much of any job recovery lies in the hands of small businesses and entrepreneurs?

What will it take for the regulator to understand and admit that the regulatory discrimination in favor of the AAAs caused the current financial crisis?

All bank crisis have started in what was perceived as AAA land

It is not so much whether the capital requirements for banks are high or low that matters, but more so the way they discriminate among assets based on default risk-weights?

Let us suppose that banks, with no special regulations, would be willing to lend at .5% over their own cost of funds to those who are rated triple-A, and with a 4% spread to more risky small businesses.

If the banks were obliged to hold 8 percent against any asset, which means they can have a leverage of 12.5 to 1 (100/8) then their net results on capital, before credit losses, when lending to the AAAs would be 6.25% (.5x12.5); and 50% (4x12.5) when lending to the small businesses. With such a difference the banks would do their utmost trying to lend well to the small businesses… as there are clearly no major bonuses to be derived from lending to the AAAs.

But when the regulators allow, as they do, the bank to hold only 1.6 percent in capital when lending to AAA rated clients, which implies a leverage of 62.5 to one (100/1.6), then the expected net result on capital for the banks when lending to AAAs, before credit losses, becomes a whopping 31.25% (.5x62.5).

And of course, a bank, and bankers, being able to make 31.25% before credit losses when lending to no risk-AAAs, would be crazy going after the much more difficult 50% margin before credit losses available when lending to the riskier small businesses and entrepreneurs.

And this is how the risk-adverse regulators pushed our banks into the so dangerous “risk-free-AAA-land” while blithely ignoring that no bank or financial failure has ever occurred because of something perceived as risky, they were all the result from something perceived as not risky; and while ignoring that what we most want out of our banks is precisely that they be good in nurturing with credit those small businesses that might grow up to be the AAAs of tomorrow.

And this is really why we find ourselves in a crisis of monumental proportions, never ever before had our regulators dared to be so publicly wimpy so as to ask the banks to so excessively embrace what was, ex-ante, perceived as having no risk.

By the way, who gave the regulators the right to discriminate solely based on perceived default risks? The small businesses, in order to have a chance to access credit, are as a direct consequence of these capital requirements forced by the regulators to pay much more for their loans... as simple as that! Do not forget that whatever little capital the banks currently have, it is mostly because of those perceived as being risky.

What the G20 or the US Congress or the regulators do not understand they cannot fix.

Have you ever heard about a financial crisis that happened from lending or investing in anything considered risky? Of course not, these have all started with lending or investments to something that offered more returns than what its perceived very low risk merited. Even the infamous Dutch tulips, in their own bubble time, would probably have been rated AAA.

That is why the current paradigm of assigning lower capital requirements to what the credit rating agencies perceive as having lower risk, like if they possessed some extraterrestrial sensorial abilities others don’t, is plain ludicrous. That only increases the expected returns from what is perceived as having no risk… precisely what would be prescribed for a financial heart-attack.

And since the Congress and the G20 do not yet get that, do not hold your breath waiting for any major progress in financial regulatory reform.

Also, to allow financial regulators to focus so excessively on the risk that lies closest to their heart, namely the risk of default, is, in a world with so many other risks, like the AAA rated BP can attest to, plain scandalous.

The biggest risk for society is that our banks will not perform efficiently their role in allocating capitals and it is always better for them to fail when taking real and worthy risks than to survive or fail taking useless Potemkin risks!

Has the US Congress delegated to the Basel Committee the settings of capital requirements for banks?

Can anyone explain why the Basel Committee is not mentioned even once in the 1336 pages long reform bill presented to the US Senate or in the 1776 pages long H.R. 4173 financial regulatory Act approved by the House of Representatives?

Has the US Congress delegated into the Basel Committee the settings of capital requirements for banks? If so is the US citizen aware of it?

For instance is Congress unaware of that the SEC when it on April 28, 2004 allowed the US investment banks to substantially increase their leverage, it did so explicitly stating that “the consolidated computations of allowable capital and risk allowances [be] prepared in a form that is consistent with the Basel Standards”.

Don’t they know that if there is anything that has guided the evolution of the current financial regulations, those that I have for so long sustained doomed the world to exactly the type of crisis we now have, that is the Basel Committee. Basel’s AAA-bomb was ignited on June 26 2004, when the G10 countries, which includes the US endorsed the revised capital framework for banks known as the Basel II standards.

The financial crisis explained to non-experts, dummies and financial regulators.

The play: The dangerously safe playgrounds!
1st scene: Some extremely wimpy parents concerned so much more with their small children’s safety than with their development picked out three independent surveyors to rate the safety of the playgrounds their children frequented.
2nd scene: In order for their small children to want to go to the safest but somewhat boring playgrounds they presented them with the choice of having some very good goodies if they went there or having to settle for some bad cold porridge if they went to the more fun park.

Kids, this or that?

3rd scene: But since the good goodies were too good, and the cold porridge too bad, and there was a natural lack of too safe playgrounds, too many children went to too few parks… where, unfortunately... they trampled themselves to death.
Epilogue: When will they ever learn? Though the kids need some risk to develop strong and not obese, and though the truly safe playgrounds are a fidget of their imagination, during the funerals, we still hear the parents planning on making the good goodies gooder and the cold porridge colder.
What the play teaches us is that with wimpy, gullible and naïve parents like these, the kids are better off running alone in the street.
The cast:
As the wimpy parents, we have the financial regulators of the Basel Committee.
As the young children, we have the banks.
As good goodies, we have a 1.6 percent capital requirements for any bank lending related to an AAA rating.
As cold porridge, we have an 8 percent capital requirements for any bank lending related to an unrated small business or entrepreneur.
As safe playgrounds turned unsafe, we have the subprime mortgages.
As the playground safety rating agency… if you cannot figure it out for yourself you’re just too dumb.
And as all the grandparents or elder siblings who, because they were not interested or did not want to erode the parental authority, did not warn the parents… we have thousands of financial experts and PhDs.

Absurd and naïve bank regulations stand in our way!

The European Commission initiated on February 26, 2010 additional public consultations on changes to the Capital Requirements Directive for banks (CRD). The following was my response.

Sir,

The world swallowed the idea proposed by the bank regulators that if one creates incentives for banks to finance what is perceived as having less risk, and disincentives to avoid what is perceived as having more risk, then we would all be better off.

The regulators implemented it by placing lower capital requirements on those bank operations that are perceived by the credit rating agencies to have lower risk of default, the AAAs, than on those perceived as having higher risk, the BBBs of the world.

What an absurd and naïve thing to do!

• As if there was enough real AAAs to go around!

• As if economic growth and human development resided primarily in AAA land!

• As if you need to give more incentives to the AAAs already favored by the natural cowardice of capitals!

• As if you can measure risks without risking affecting those same risks.

• As if those operations perceived as less risky did not face the risk of more carelessness.

• As if those human fallible credit rating agencies would not be subject to very strong pressures to award the AAAs.

What happened? What was doomed to happen!

Increasing the value of the perceived safe-havens created incentives for selling some not so safe havens as safe, by influencing perceptions, which led to dangerously overcrowding a subprime haven; which caused the current financial crisis.

What needs to be done? Start from scratch!

There is no way to build something good on top of a foundation as faulty as the Basel Committee´s “The First Pillar – Minimum Capital Requirements”. Unfortunately this could prove to be an impossible task if keeping those regulators who so entirely succumbed to the current paradigms.

Europe, wake up! The current crisis did not result from excessive risk-taking. It was the result of misguided excessive risk-aversion. The losses occurred in AAA land not in BBB land.

Europe, wake up! Risk-taking is what takes one forward. Risk aversion can only guarantee being diminished. Europe, do not allow yourself to be diminished! Rest of the world that goes for you too!

Per Kurowski

Risk management is not a petit committee issue! Regulators and credit rating agencies should not preempt the markets!

The report by the Institute of International Finance, IIF, “Reforms in the Financial Services Industry” states not surprisingly that “Strengthening risk management is a top priority, and risk functions are being reconfigured and upgraded to give firms a more integrated approach to risk management."

The report, making many good and valid observations in reference to risk management, also warns about the risk of it "becoming too prescriptive, inducing many firms to adopt the same risk management approach. That would detract from the important competitive benefits resulting from each firm being free to make its own choices regarding risk appetite. More important, it would create significant “model risk.” If all firms were required to use similar approaches and models in managing risk, they could tend increasingly to behave in the same way, reinforcing procyclicality."

For someone who in 2000 warned of new regulatory risks arising in Basel writing “In the past there were many countries and many forms of regulation. Today, norms and regulation are haughtily put into place that transcend borders and are applicable worldwide without considering that the after effects of any mistake could be explosive.”, those comments are pure music.

I have also argued that the only valid regulatory response that fosters market diversity in risk management is the establishment of some very simple rules that do not introduce more distortions and complications than those already abundant in the real world.

In this respect, the regulator, instead of permitting different capital requirements for different assets depending on perceived risks should require equal capital requirements for any type of assets and let the risk appraisal process to unhindered fully take place in the market, between bankers, shareholders and creditors… instead of, as currently is the case, between bankers, regulators and credit rating agencies.

The IIF report though understandably not totally clear on the issue, acknowledges it when it makes a sort of veiled leave-us-alone pleading stating among its “leading points”:

“Communication and disclosure of risk appetite: Firms should improve their disclosure practices regarding their risk appetite determination (e.g., what metrics they use, their level of tolerance, their decision-making processes). These disclosures display to stakeholders, analysts, and creditors —in short to the market—how rigorous and robust the risk management framework is at an individual firm, hence contributing to effective market discipline.

Regulators and risk appetite: Some supervisors’ reports have called for authorities to monitor and regulate banks’ risk appetite. While it is legitimate for macroprudential regulation to gather information on firms’ risk appetites, and it is legitimate for supervisors to challenge the firm’s risk appetite and the means by which this is identified and transmitted, firms should be able to define their own risk appetites with the interests of their direct stakeholders in mind.”

They’ve left the rotten apple in the Financial Regulatory Reform barrel!

Though the proposed financial regulatory reform often speaks about more stringent capital requirements it still conserves the principle of “risk-based regulatory capital requirements” and by doing so the “new foundation” builds upon the most fundamental flaw of the current regulatory system.

Regulators have no business in trying to discriminate risks since by doing so they alter the risks and make it more difficult for the normal risk allocation mechanism in the markets to function.

Financial risk cannot only be managed by looking at the recipients of funds as lenders or investors are also an integral part of the risk. High risks could be negligible risks when managed by the appropriate agents while perceived low risks could be the most dangerous ones if the fall in the wrong hands.

The recent crisis detonated because some very simple and straight-forward awfully badly awarded mortgages to the subprime sector, managed to camouflage themselves in some shady securities and thereby hustle up an AAA rating. This crisis did not grew out of risky and speculative railroads in Argentina this crisis had its origins in financing the safest assets, houses, in supposedly the safest country, the US.

Are you aware of that for a loan to a borrower that has been able to hustle up an AAA the regulators require the banks to have only 1.6 percent in equity, authorizing the banks to leverage their equity 62.5 to 1?

The credit rating agencies and the GPS

Not so long ago I asked my daughter to key in an address in the GPS and then even while I continuously heard a little voice inside me telling me I was heading in the wrong direction I ended up where I did not want to go. That is exactly what the credit ratings did to the financial markets, especially when the regulators created so many incentives to follow them.