Why does IMF never mention that credit-risk-weighted capital requirements for banks, is a potent inequality driver?

I refer to an IMF Staff-Discussion-Note titled “Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective”. It includes among other “Factors Driving Higher Income Inequality” the following:

“Financial globalization. Financial globalization can facilitate efficient international allocation of capital and promote international risk sharing. At the same time, increased financial flows, particularly foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows have been shown to increase income inequality in both advanced and emerging market economies… Financial deregulation and globalization have also been cited as factors underlying the increase in financial wealth, relative skill intensity, and wages in the finance industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in advanced.

Financial deepening. Financial deepening can provide households and firms with greater access to resources to meet their financial needs, such as saving for retirement, investing in education, capitalizing on business opportunities, and confronting shocks. Financial deepening accompanied by more inclusive financial systems can thus lower income inequality, while improving the allocation of resources… Theory, however, suggests that … inequality can increase as those with higher incomes and assets have a disproportionately larger share of access to finance, serving to further increase the skill premium, and potentially the return to capital.”

And again I must ask: Why does IMF insist on keeping mum on that huge financial inequality driver that is the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks?

Society lends bank much support, not only directly, by entrusting it with its deposits, but also indirectly, by offering deposit guarantees that if called upon will be paid by taxpayers.

And the Basel Committee thought it could make banks safer by making the capital requirements for banks to be dependent on perceptions of credit risk… while entirely ignoring that those perceptions of risk were already cleared for, by means of risk premiums and size of exposure.

And so, for instance with Basel II, regulators decided that banks were allowed to leverage the societal support over 60 times to 1 when lending to the AAArisktocracy, namely those rated AAA to AA, but only about 12 times to 1, when lending to unrated SMEs and entrepreneurs. That, which allows banks to earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to “The Safe”, blocks the opportunities of “the risky” to obtain fair access to bank credit. It therefore constitutes a huge driver of inequality.

And since the document refers to “Financial deregulation” I must also ask, for the umpteenth time…what financial deregulation? That where a small number of regulators redirect the allocation of bank credit all over the world… de facto imposing global capital controls? You’ve got to be kidding!

No! The Basel Committee is just a nest of irresponsible populist technocrats, who frankly have no idea of what they are doing. For instance they derive those capital requirements, that they themselves declare should be there to cover for unexpected losses, from the perceptions of expected losses. How loony is not that? Clearly the safer something is perceived, the bigger its potential to deliver truly disastrous unexpected losses.

I have often complained about these regulations on the IMF blog… you can Google it on “blog-imfdirect.imf.org Kurowski”. But I have never received an answer from IMF, seemingly the automatic solidarity among technocrats is very strong.

PS.That regulatory protectionism can both keep our banks safe and allocate credit well, is pure and unabridged technocratic populism

Consumption will be postponed because of deflation? How much truth… how much nonsense?

We so often read of central banker’s being very scared of deflation because the expectation of lower prices would cause consumption to be postponed and therefore economic activity to be reduced. How much truth is there in this… and how much nonsense?

I guess no one in the upper 1% would postpone one iota of their demands because of this… nor is deflation much likely to affect the products and services they demand.

I guess that all who have unsatisfied needs, by far the largest proportion of the population, will just appreciate the possibility of satisfying more of these needs, and also not postpone one cent of their aggregate demand.

And I guess that of all those who could perhaps benefit from some purchase postponement, but who suffer the instant-gratification virus, will also not postpone satisfying any demands.

And so we come down to trying to estimate how much of the population have satisfied their current demands sufficiently; and who at the same time are sufficiently disciplined not give to in to instant gratification, and who therefore would save and net postpone some purchases.

And the savings resulting from those postponements, where would these go?

To sum up... I have no idea!

But I do know that inflation... is a tax that primarily hurts the poor... and so in a world full of Pikettys, it is sort of strange hearing central banker's wish for it... just as hearing central bankers who one normally think of in terms of being very thrifty fellows... wanting to rob value from their children's piggy banks. 

PS. Europe, should oil reach US$ 150 a barrel so as to allow ECB to celebrate having reached its inflation target?

My questions to the World Bank/IMF - Spring Meetings 2008

Risk is the oxygen of development!

It is absurd to believe that the US and other countries would have reached development without bank failures. When the Basel Committee imposes on the banks minimum capital requirements based solely on default risks, this signifies putting a tax on risk-taking, something which in itself carries serious risks. The real risk is not banks defaulting; the real risk is banks not helping the society in its growth and development. Not having a hangover (bank-crisis) might just be the result of not going to the party!

We need to stop focusing solely on the hangovers and begin measuring the results of the whole cycle, party and hangover, boom and bust! The South Korean boom that went bust in 1997-1998 seems to have been much more productive for South Korea than what the current boom-bust cycle seems to have been for the United States.

All over the world there is more than sufficient evidence that taxing risks has only stimulated the financing of anything that can be construed as risk free, like public sector and securitized consumer financing; and penalized the finance of more risky ventures like decent job creation. Is it time for capital requirements based on units of default risk per decent job created?

When is the World Bank as a development bank to speak up on this issue on which they have been silent in the name of “harmonization” with the IMF?

When are we to stop digging in the hole we’re in?

The detonator of our current financial turmoil were the badly awarded mortgages to the subprime sector and that morphed into prime rated securities with the help of the credit rating agencies appointed as risk surveyors for the world by the bank regulators.

If we survive this one and since it is “human to err” we know that if we keep empowering the credit rating agencies to direct the financial flows in the world, it is certain that at some time in the future we will follow them over even more dangerous precipices.

Note: I have just read the Financial Stability Forum brotherhood’s report on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience and while including some very common sense recommendations with respect to better liquidity management and “reliable operational infrastructure”; and some spirited words about more supervision and oversight (the blind leading the blind); with respect to the concerns expressed above, bottom line is that they recommend we should deepen the taxes on risks and make certain that the credit rating agencies behave better and get to be more knowledgeable… so that we are more willing to follow them where we, sooner or later, do not and should not want to go.

Do micro-credit institutions make too much use of “predatory ratings”?

Any group of debtors that is charged a higher interest rate because it is considered a higher credit risk is composed by those spending their money servicing a debt that they will finally default on, and those who should have in fact deserved a lower interest rate. Are there any real winners among them?

Who is out there talking about that the extensive use of ratings signifies something like a regressive tax for the poor? Who is out there informing the poorly rated about how very dearly they are paying for their loans? Who is out there analyzing the murdering impact that credit ratings have in chipping away at the minimum levels of solidarity that any society needs to keeps itself a society?

If there is a minimum of things that needs to be done in the world of micro credits that is to focus more on transparent system of incentives that: 1. Stimulates and rewards good group behavior and returns to the compliant borrowers some of the “extraordinary” margins earned. 2. Spreads out the costs of those who cannot make it over a much wider group of debtors.

And, by the way, this applies just the same to the financing of mortgages to the subprime sector.