Bank supervisors/examiners as well as the banks’ own risk managers, find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

Note: This post is based on to “How Bank Oversight Failed: The Economy Changed, Regulators Didn’t” by Andrew Ackerman, Angel Au-Yeung and Hannah Miao, WSJ March 24, 2023, but it could refer to many of the articles currently being published on #SVB,

“If examiners thought the bank should prepare for a scenario such as rapid growth, soaring interest rates and abrupt loss of deposits, as later happened to SVB, examiners would be hobbled by the absence of explicit regulatory guidance calling for such preparations”

Worse! They would be hobbled by the presence of explicit regulatory guidance, namely the risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements (RWCR) based on perceived credit risks, not on misperceived risks, unexpected events or ignored risks, such as duration risk. To top it up, these requirements are based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to bank systems than what’s perceived.

That places the supervisors/examiners and the banks’ own risk managers between a rock and a hard place. 

What bank risk manager, wanting to keep his job and be paid a bonus, would currently want to address his Board of Directors with: “Our model, because of too many assets we have perceived as safe could now turn out risky, indicates that you have to raise a substantial amount of equity”?

What supervisors/examiners, would dare to argue that the Basel Committee and their other superiors, have not the faintest idea of how to regulate banks? Among other because they all clearly missed their lectures on conditional probabilities?

“Banking regulators will spend months, if not years, getting to the bottom of what happened.” Of course, they will. They do not want the world to understand what hair-raising regulatory mistake they committed.

The GFC, 2008 crisis, was much caused by the excessive exposures US investment banks and European banks held of AAA to AA rated mortgage-backed securities (MBS), against which they were required by Basel II to hold only 1.6% in capital/equity. 

Basel III introduced new capital and liquidity requirements but let the RWCR intact, which meant that on the margin, there were it most counts, the distortive effect of these were even strengthened. (Think of the “Drowning pool”)

What if an investment bank had reported to a little old lady her long-term bond holdings based on value on maturity (as banks are allowed to do), and she then suffered unexpected unaffordable losses when selling these, would it be fined? Just asking.

And what about all journalists? Will they admit they were duped/lulled into a false sense of security by reporting on strong and satisfactory levels of capital based on the naïve assumption that the risk weighted assets reported (RWA), were a valid measure of the banks' risk exposure.

Here's much more on the issue

The Finalization of Basel III’s is just a photo-op for the Committee members to go home for Christmas with, as it does nothing to correct the fundamental flaws of current bank regulations.

The Basel Committee’s “Finalizing Basel III” brief states: 

1. “What is Basel III? The Basel III framework is a central element of the Basel Committee’s response to the global financial crisis. It addresses a number of shortcomings in the pre-crisis regulatory framework and provides a foundation for a resilient banking system that will help avoid the build-up of systemic vulnerabilities. The framework will allow the banking system to support the real economy through the economic cycle.”

Since the risk weighted capital requirements are kept, that is simply not true! The global financial crisis was a direct consequence of regulations that allowed banks to leverage immensely their capital as long as they kept to “safe” assets: limitless leverage with exposures to friendly sovereigns, 62.5 times with private sector exposures rated AAA to AA, and 35.7 times with residential mortgages. 

The exaggerated demand these regulations created for residential mortgages and highly rated securities, which caused serious deteriorations in their quality, and of loans to low risk decreed sovereigns, like Greece, explains 99.9% of the financial crisis.

In contrast when lending to an entrepreneur or an unrated small or medium size enterprise, as that was (is) considered risky, banks were only allowed to leverage 12.5 times. The differences in potential risk adjusted returns on equity between “safe” and “risky” assets hindered, and hinders, the banking system from adequately supporting the real economy

2. “What do the 2017 reforms do? “The 2017 reforms seek to restore credibility in the calculation of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) and improve the comparability of banks’ capital ratios. RWAs are an estimate of risk that determines the minimum level of regulatory capital a bank must maintain to deal with unexpected losses. A prudent and credible calculation of RWAs is an integral element of the risk-based capital framework.”

But the fundamental question of why it should be prudent to require banks to hold more capital against what is perceived risky, when the real dangers to the bank system is when something perceived as safe turns out risky, remains unanswered.

3. “Credibility of the framework: A range of studies found an unacceptably wide variation in RWAs across banks that cannot be explained solely by differences in the riskiness of banks’ portfolios. The unwarranted variation makes it difficult to compare capital ratios across banks and undermines confidence in capital ratios. The reforms will address this to help restore the credibility of the risk-based capital framework.

Internal models should allow for more accurate risk measurement than the standardised approaches developed by supervisors. However, incentives exist to minimise risk weights when internal models are used to set minimum capital requirements. In addition, certain types of asset, such as low-default exposures, cannot be modelled reliably or robustly. The reforms introduce constraints on the estimates banks make when they use their internal models for regulatory capital purposes, and, in some cases, remove the use of internal models.” 

Where do regulators get the idea that if there are less-variations in RWAs, the standardized RWAs, based on how regulators perceive risks, are any more accurate? Excessive hubris? Have they forgotten their own “Standardized” risk weights? Alzheimer? 

Also, since banks should clear for perceived risks in the size of the exposures and interest rates, making them clear for those same risks in the capital too, causes an excessive consideration of perceived risks. The regulators clearly keep on ignoring that any risk, even if perfectly perceived, causes the wrong actions, if excessively considered.

That regulators now, at long last, have understood that “incentives exist to minimise risk weights when internal models are used to set minimum capital”, serves little as consolation, as it just evidences their original naiveté.

PS. As an aide memoire for the regulators to take home for Christmas here’s a list of their mistakes. Am I being nasty? No! How many millions of entrepreneurs have over the years been negated access to the life changing opportunities of a bank credit, only because of these regulators? How many young must live in the basement of their parents houses without jobs, only because regulator think it is safer to finance houses than job creation opportunities? Let’s pray all the Ebenezer Scrooge in the Basel Committee will see light one day... or at least have the decency to fade away.