Is being consistent better than being right? Is the quest for consistency not just a cover up for mediocrity?

We read: “The members of the Financial Stability Board´s Regional Consultative Group for Europe were updated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on the findings of the regulatory consistency assessment of risk-weighted assets for market risk and credit risk in banks’ portfolios, and shared national perspectives on regulatory consistency of risk weights.”

Of course we like consistency, but what is more important, that all these European countries are consistent in their assessment of risk-weighted assets for market risk and credit risk in banks’ portfolios, or that some in the group, could get it right, even if this meant acting inconsistently?

Has the biodiversity of opinions no longer any value? Is this quest for consistency not just a cover up for mediocrity?

Only consistence can create a dangerous systemic risk, inconsistency does not!

“Consistent implementation of the Basel framework is fundamental to raising the resilience of the global banking system”

Silly, silly, silly! Here the regulators once again enter into an exercise of futile navel gazing. Why should regulators be concerned with whether the risk weighting of assets is consistent or not? 

Their problem is not if any risk-weighing is correct, or consistent, their problem is when the risk-weighing is incorrect and what to do about the consequences. 

Let us instead pray for tremendous amounts of inconsistency since that is the only thing that can save us from building up a systemic risk that will bring all the banks down, simultaneously.

A free market is not made up by consistencies, but by millions of inconsistencies!