Trade wars will mean new tariffs

There is another tariff war that is being dangerously ignored. 

The July 6 editorial "A splendid little tariff war?" rightly held that "tariffs create all sort of inefficiencies, unintended consequences and uncertainty."

The risk-weighted capital requirements for banks also translate de facto into subsidies and tariffs, which have resulted in a too much-ignored allocation of bank credit war. 

One consequence is that those perceived as risky, such as entrepreneurs, have their access to bank credit made more difficult than usual, and our economy suffers. Another is that by promoting excessive exposures to what is especially dangerous, because it is perceived as safe, against especially little capital, guarantees that when a bank crisis results, it will be especially bad. 

In terms of Mark Twain's supposed saying, these regulations have bankers lending out the umbrella faster than usual when the sun shines and wanting it back faster than usual when it looks like it is going to rain.

Letter published in the Washington Post

Here other of my letters in the Washington Post on this issue:
September 6, 2007: Factors in the Financial Storm
June 20, 2008: An Aspect of the Bubble
December 27, 2009: Another 'worst': Faulty bank regulation

January 6, 2012: Handcuffed by a triple-A rating
May 1, 2013: An American approach to banking
December 23, 2014: Let the market rule on risky trades
November 11, 2015: Reverse-mortgaging the future
August 9, 2016: Banks, regulators and risk
April 16, 2017: When banks play it too safe 

December 30, 2018: Affordable homes or investment assets?

Current risk weighted capital requirements are de facto regressive regulatory taxes imposed on the access to bank credit.

When interviewed by Dave Rubin, Don Boudreaux, defending a flat tax states:

“When you tax all income earning activities the same, then the relative prices of different types of labor services stay the same. With progressive taxes you create greater distortion in the economy and that makes us all a bit less wealthy than we would otherwise be”

Why is never a flat capital requirement for banks defended with the same impetus as a flat tax on income?

As is the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, which even though some leverage ratio has been imposed still operate on the margin, impose de facto different taxes on the access to bank credit.

To make it worse though in the case of taxes on income these are currently progressive, in the sense that they most affect those who are already by being perceived as risky have less and more expensive access to bank credit, these regulatory taxes are regressive.

PS. Why did Classical Liberals or Libertarians not speak up when, in 1988, with the Basel Accord, Basel I, the regulators risk weighted the sovereign with 0% and the citizens with 100%?

When it comes to discrimination, EU cares more about the access to a monastery than about the access to bank credit

If I had the right to vote I would have voted for Britain to stay in EU. But I would have hoped for that this option had won by just one vote, so that there was huge pressure on EU to clean up its act. It sorely needs it.

For instance, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services is in charge of promoting free movement of capital and therefore has a lot do to with the extremely important area of regulating the financial services. 

It is a topic of much interest for me since, for more than a decade, I have argued that the Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements for banks, is impeding the free movement of capital with disastrous consequences for the real economy.

But in 2012, during a conference in Washington by the then Commissioner Michel Barnier, I was handed a brochure that presented, as a success story of his office, the following: 

“A French citizen complained about discriminatory entry fees for tourists to Romanian monasteries. The ticket price for non-Romanians was twice as high as that for Romanian citizens. As this policy was contrary to EU principles, the Romanian SOLVIT centre persuaded the church authorities to establish non-discriminatory entry fees for the monasteries. Solved within 9 weeks.” 

And then I knew for sure something smelled very rotten in the EU, with its full of hubris besserwisser not accountable to anyone technocrats.

How can they waste time on such small time discrimination when those borrowers ex ante perceived as risky, and who therefore already got less bank credit and at higher interest rates, now suffer additional discrimination caused by regulators requiring banks sot hold more capital when lending to them that when lending to those ex ante perceived as safe? And on top of it all, for absolutely no reason, since dangerous excessive bank exposures, are always built up with assets perceived as safe.

Barnier, as Frenchman should know Voltaire’s “May God defend me from my friends: I can defend myself from my enemies.” But now bank regulators tell banks “trust much more your friends”, the AAA rated, and to which in Basel II they assigned a risk weight of 20%; and “beware even more of your enemies”, the below BB- rated, and which were given a risk weight of 150%.

As a result banks can leverage more their equity with “safe” assets than with “risky” assets, and so they now earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to sovereigns, members of the AAArisktocracy or financing houses, than when lending to SMEs and entrepreneurs.

And as a direct consequence of this regulatory risk aversion, banks do not any longer finance the riskier future, they only refinance the for the short time being safer past.

So there is no wonder EU is not doing well. And if Brexit helps to push for the reform that are needed, then Britain should be given an open invitation to return to it at its leisure.

PS. During the Washington conference I just could not refrain from asking what the French citizen did for 9 weeks while waiting for SOLVIT to come to his rescue.

PS. Lubomir Zaoralek the minister of foreign affairs of the Czech Republic in FT “Europe’s institutions must share the blame forBrexit” July 1. Hear hear!

The poor, “the risky” and the future are subsidizing the bank borrowings of “the absolutely safe”. Now how about that?

Governments guarantees to help bank creditors if banks fail, which in all essence is a support subsidy to the banks.

And, if banks fail, and government needs to pay up, it is argued that it is the taxpayers who must pay… and we usually leave it at that. 

But, when taxpayers pay, it is actually all who pay, and that means, in relative terms, especially the poor; because the wealthy have more deposits in the banks which are saved; and because the poor would probably be the one most to benefit with the taxes that could be collected, if the support subsidy was not needed to be paid.

But regulators also allow banks to hold less equity when lending to those from a credit point of view perceived as absolutely safe, than when lending to those perceived as risky; and that signifies that the support subsidy is effectively bigger for those perceived as absolutely safe than for those perceived as risky.

Finally, what has already made it, namely the history, has a lot more possibilities of being perceived as absolutely safe, than what needs an opportunity to be, namely the future.

All that translates into that the poor, those perceived as "risky" and the future, are subsidizing the bank borrowings of the “absolutely safe”… now how about that? And, if that is not a cruel way of fostering inequality, what is?

What are the thickheaded bank regulators smoking?

It is truly mindboggling to hear so much about job creation, without a single word uttered against how bank regulators discriminate against our prime job creators, the small businesses and entrepreneurs… only on account of these being perceived as “risky”.

What are they smoking... might they be talking about jobs on Mars?

Our current bank regulators seem incapable of understanding that when they allow the banks the goody of being able to leverage their capital more if lending to the “not-risky” than when lending to the “risky”, they are effectively discriminating against the “risky” small businesses and entrepreneurs, precisely those we most need to get into action in order to create the next generation of jobs. 

Honestly, how thickheaded can we allow them to be?