Bank regulators, don’t try now to hide your responsibility for failures behind sophistications. It was pure hubristic ineptitude.

I refer to Andy Haldane’s “The Dappled World” 

Bank regulators don’t try now to sophisticate the reasons you all got it so very wrong. These were very simple.

You did not define the purpose of banks before regulating these.

You ignored to study why banks fail and kept to why bank assets fail, which of course is pas la meme chose.

You ignored that banks look to maximize their risk-adjusted returns on equity, before distorting the allocation of bank credit with your risk-weighted capital requirements for banks.

You ignored the monstrous systemic risks that putting so much decision power into the hands of so human fallible credit rating agencies implied.

You imposed you statist ideological preferences with the risk weights of 0% for the Sovereign, and 100% for We the People.

No! Anyone who has ever walked on main-street, and seen the difficulties those perceived as risky have in accessing bank credit would have understood how loony these regulations were. Frankly, you do not have to be a PhD for that 

Basel Committee’s mindboggling naiveté: Banks, thou shall not misbehave and fudge to lower your capital requirements

In the “Statement on capital arbitrage transactions” Basel Committee newsletter No 18 of June 2016 we read:

“Transactions that are designed to offset regulatory adjustments employ a variety of strategies. For example, these may include: (1) the issuance of senior or subordinated securities with or without contingent write off mechanisms; (2) sales contracts that transfer insufficient risk to be deemed sales for accounting purposes; (3) fully-collateralised derivative contracts; and (4) guarantees or insurance policies. These types of transactions… can have the effect of overestimating eligible capital or reducing capital requirements, without commensurately reducing the risk in the financial system, thus undermining the calibration of minimum regulatory capital requirements.

Banks should therefore not engage in transactions that have the aim of offsetting regulatory adjustments.”

What a mindboggling naiveté! While regulators allow banks to hold less capital against assets perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, and the risk-adjusted return on equity is how banks compete for capital (and bonuses), how can they think banks will not do their utmost to lower the required equity?

PS. Children, listen to your Basel nannie, though there is ice-cream and chocolate cake in the fridge, she still expects you to eat the spinach and the broccoli.

PS. You want your children not to arbitrage and eat of everything... blend it all together.

PS.You want your banks not to arbitrage... set one capital requirements for all assets.

Banks and regulators don’t care about our economy

Banks, regulators and risk

The Aug. 5 Economy & Business article “What happens when lines blur between banks, regulators” referred to several issues and conflicts of importance between banks and regulators but did not mention the prime point of agreement between all regulators and all banks: None of these actors cares about the state of the real economy.

Banks love to earn high-risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to something perceived as absolutely safe, so they love when regulators allow them to hold much less equity when lending to something perceived, decreed or concocted as safe.

Regulators love it when banks avoid taking risks, so they are more than happy to allow banks to hold much less equity when lending to something ex-ante perceived by them as safe, and therefore allow banks to earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when staying away from the risky.

Our problem, though, is that we need for our banks to lend to the risky, such as small and medium-size enterprises and entrepreneurs, to keep our economy moving forward.

Regulators have never defined the purpose of the banks, so they do not care about whether these banks allocate credit efficiently to our real economy.

Per Kurowski, Rockville

The writer was an executive director at the World Bank from 2002 to 2004.

A letter in the Washington Post

There is only one 100 percent sure cause for the financial crisis 2007/08, and it is discussed less than 0.01 percent

The crisis exploded because of excessive exposures to AAA rated securities, real estate (Spain), loan to sovereigns (Greece) and short-term loans to banks (Iceland). They all one thing in common, namely that banks were required by regulators to hold very very little capital against these assets, and so banks could leverage very very much their equity with these assets, meaning that banks could expect to earn very very high risk adjusted returns on equity for these assets.

Had banks been required to hold the same level of capital against all assets, other crisis could have happened, but not one as large as the one in 2007/08.

So how much have you read about the problems related to the distortions produced by the risk weighted capital requirements in the allocation of credit to the real economy? Probably nothing!

Why? There are many explanations to that but, one of the most important, is that there is much more political interest in blaming bad bankers than laying it on good regulators.

Is this a problem? 

Yes, those regulations are still in place and so could still lead banks to create similar dangerously large exposures to something perceived or deemed safe. 

And since that still favors The Safe over The Risky, those who could most help us get our economies moving again, the SMEs and the entrepreneurs, have a lousy access to bank credit.

Right now banks are not financing the risky future, they are just refinancing the safer past, that which might soon turn risky, because of excessive financing.

PS. Here is a more extensive aide memoire on the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

The bank regulators of the Basel Committee are dumb and dangerous; and are not being held accountable for that

The pillar of current bank regulations is the credit risk weighted minimum capital requirements for banks; more perceived credit risk-more capital and less risk-less capital.

For instance, in Basel II of 2004, paragraph 66, we find the following risk weights for claims on corporates depending on their credit assessment.

AAA to AA rated = 20%; A+ to A- = 50%; BBB+ to BB- = 100%; Below BB- = 150%; Unrated = 100%

Since the basic capital requirement in Basel II was 8 percent then the respective minimum capital requirements were:

AAA to AA rated = 1.6%; A+ to A- = 4%; BBB+ to BB- = 8%; Below BB- = 12%; Unrated = 8%

And that translates into that banks were allowed to leverage capital (equity) as many times as follows:

AAA to AA rated = 62.5; A+ to A- = 25; BBB+ to BB- = 12.5; Below BB- = 8.3; Unrated = 12.5

That is dumb and that is dangerous.

The dumb part is easily evidenced by just asking: Who can think that what has a credit rating of below BB-; which means moving from “highly speculative” through “extremely speculative” and up to “default imminent”, is more dangerous to banks than any of the other “safer” assets?

With a reference to Mark Twain’s saying that “bankers want to lend you the umbrella when the sun shines and take it back when it looks like it is going to rain”, one could even make a case for the totally opposite, a 20% risk weight for assets rated below BB- and a 150% risk weight for assets rated AAA to AA.

And clearly no major bank crises have ever resulted from excessive exposures to risky type below BB- exposures; these have always resulted from excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as “safe” but that ex post turned out to be risky. In fact it only guarantees that if something really bad happens with an excessive exposure to something erroneously perceived as safe, that banks will stand there naked, with especially little capital to cover them up with. 

But it is also very dangerous, primarily because it distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

By allowing banks to leverage more with the Safe than with the Risky, banks will be able to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity with the Safe than with the Risky; which means banks will lend more than it would ordinarily lend to the Safe and less than it would ordinarily lend to the Risky… and that cannot be good for the real economy.

The day someone calculates how many small loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs have not been awarded because of this silly regulatory risk aversion; and we think of all the opportunities for job creation that have been lost; we will all cry... and our young could get mad as hell, as they should.

But the real story is even worse. Regulators gave the sovereigns (governments) a risk weight of zero percent; which means they think government bureaucrats are worthier of bank credit than those in the private sector. That is pure unabridged statism.

And since these regulations discriminate against the bank credit opportunities of the Risky, it also serves as a potent driver for increased inequality.

There is soon a decade since that crisis which resulted from excessive exposures to AAA rated securities, and to sovereigns like Greece, broke out; and the arguments here presented are not even being discussed. If that lack of accountability is not scary, what is?

Banks should allocate credit based on risk-adjusted return on equity, and not on regulatory required equity

Banks used to allocate bank credit (interest rates and amount of exposure) according to what produced them the highest risk adjusted return per dollar of equity. Since some borrowers, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, are more dependent on banks for credit than others, that might not have been absolutely perfect in terms of allocating bank credit to the needs of the real economy, but at least it was fair and unbiased.

That was before the Basel Accord introduced their outright odious capital requirements based on credit risk. Now banks allocate their credit according to what produces them the highest risk adjusted return per dollar of required equity. Obviously that is totally biased and completely unfair.

Since those borrowers perceived a safe have been additionally benefited by generating lower capital requirements, it is almost impossible for the risky to compete for bank credit.

The resulting distortion in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy is mind boggling.

It is amazing the number of experts who think that even though banks already clear for perceived credit risks, by means of interest rates and size of exposures, that in order to be certain they have done that, it is better the regulators require banks to clear again for that same perceived credit risks, this time in the capital

It is amazing the number of experts who do not understand that even if you have an absolutely perfect perceived credit risk, you will get it wrong if you give that credit risk perception more weight than it should have.

It is amazing the number of experts who do not understand that: more risk more capital- less risk less capital will cause banks to create dangerous excessive exposures to "the safe" and equally dangerous (for the real economy) underexposures to "the risky".

It is amazing the number of experts who are statist or communists, since otherwise there is no way to argue a zero percent risk weight for sovereigns, and a 100 percent risk weight for the private sector.

Here is but a short list of those experts: Mario Draghi, Stefan Ingves, Mark Carney, Ben Bernanke, Jaime Caruana, Lord Turner, Martin Wolf and most of FT, Alan Greenspan, seemingly all those in the IMF, Basel Committee, Financial Stability Board, European Commission, BoE, Fed, FDIC, ECB

To be in the company of fools might make you a less lonely fool, never a lesser fool.

Greece urgently needs lower capital requirements for banks when lending to SMEs than when lending to its government

Between June 2004 and November 2009 thanks to Basel II, banks were allowed to lend to the Government of Greece against only 1.6 percent in capital while requiring banks to hold 8 percent in capital when lending to the private sector.

That meant that banks could leverage their equity 62.5 times lending to the Government but only 12.5 times when lending to the private sector.

That meant, of course, that banks ended up lending much too much to the government and much too little to the private sector, like to Greek SMEs and entrepreneurs.

And here we are with Greece stuck in the doldrums and not finding its way out.

If I were its doctor, I would immediately recommend that banks should be allowed to hold less capital when lending to the private sector than when lending to the government. Since the private sector is the heart of the economy it is very urgent it gets out of it flat-line, by banks pumping the oxygen it needs.

Should not the taxman also create incentives to avoid stupid risk-taking like the Basel Committee does?

The Basel Committee allows banks to earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on their equity when lending to “the infallible” than when lending to “the risky”. And that is done by means of the portfolio invariant bank equity requirements based on perceived credit risk. 

And seemingly most of the world, if it does not ignore that, finds that regulatory risk-aversion which I find so dangerous, to be a swell idea (at least those in FT).

Now if these anti-risk supporters truly believe in the powers of these incentives, why do they not propose their taxmen to design similar policies?

For instance they should propose that dividends and capital gains from investments in absolutely safe companies should be taxed at a higher rate than those deriving from investments in risky companies. That should do it, eh?

This financial crisis did not disprove the efficient market hypothesis.

One of the most mentioned aspects about the current bank crisis is that in much it was a consequence of Alan Greenspan believing blindly in the efficient markets hypothesis, a hypothesis that became so thoroughly discredited.

Sorry… what efficient markets? With respect to the allocation of bank credit, the markets were completely distorted by the risk-weighted capital requirements, and so that hypothesis had no chance to be proven or disproven.

The capital requirements were and are much lower for what is perceived as absolutely safe, than for what is perceived as risky, and so the risk-adjusted returns on bank equity are much higher on assets perceived as absolutely safe than on assets perceived as safe.

In terms of the equity markets this would be something similar to the government multiplying the profits of investors, by paying them bonuses or similar subsidies, whenever they invested in shares with low volatility and not in shares with high volatility. Do you really think that would allow for an efficient market hypothesis to work free at its leisure?

I am not saying that the markets behave efficiently all the time but that, this time at least, it was clearly not the fault of markets, but the fault of dumb regulators.

PS. These comments were inspired by reading Chapter 1, "Primordial Seeds" in James Owen Weatherall's "The Physics of Wall Street" and which contains a fascinating description of the origins of the hypothesis and of its first and almost forgotten originator Louis Bachelier.

PS. I should acknowledge Tim Harford's arguments that though not the same do point in the same direction.

Who are the rent extractors and who the rent payers of current bank regulations?

The pillar of current bank regulations is capital requirements for banks based on perceived risk, a.k.a. risk-weights. The more risk the more capital the much less “risk” the much less capital. 

That means that the rent extractors are:

1. The bankers, whose dream of making high equity return on what is perceived as “absolutely safe” has come through… that is of course until they discover the ex ante perceptions were, ex post, wrong.

2. "The Infallible": the "sovereigns, the housing sector and the AAAristocracy; namely those who will have much more access, in much better terms, to bank credit.

And that means that the rent squeezed payers are:

1. "The Risky”: medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and star ups, namely those who will have much less access and in much worse terms, to bank credit.

2. And of course all the unemployed youth who will find their possibilities in life to gain access to decent and sturdy jobs much reduced by this senseless regulatory risk aversion.

The “convenient myth” which supports current bank regulations, needs to be debunked

Many bank executives and some regulators hold that not using risk-weights when calculating capital requirements for banks can tempt banks to move towards riskier loans that earn higher returns but are more likely to result in losses.

That is complete baloney and this so convenient for some banks myth needs to be urgently debunked.

As a start we just need to understand that any “perceived risk” can be cleared for by bankers by the interest rate they apply, the size of the exposure and other contracting terms. 

And so the truth is that lower capital requirements, permitted for something perceived as “absolutely safe”, and which allows the banks to achieve a higher expected risk-adjusted return on equity on those assets, will only help to push the banks to create excessive exposures, while holding very little capital, to precisely that type of exposures which have caused all the bank crises in history, namely assets which were ex-ante perceived as safe but that ex-post turned out to be risk. And, if in doubt, just try to find one single major bank crisis that has resulted from excessive exposures to what was ex-ante, not ex-post, perceived as risky.

The different capital requirements based on perceived risk which so much favors the access to bank credit of The Infallible and thereby discriminates against The Risky, also completely distorts the allocation of bank credit in the real economy. 

What would for instance a regulator, in the US or in Europe, answer if asked: Sir, why are the capital requirements for our banks lower when they lend to a foreign sovereign, than when they lend to our national small business and entrepreneurs, those who have never ever set off a major bank crisis?

Imagine what much good some more “daring” bank regulations could do for the real economy.

Currently capital requirements for banks are much lower for exposures to what is perceived as “absolutely safe” than for what is perceived as “risky”. It may sound logical, but it is not.

That only helps banks to earn, for no good reason, much higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to what is perceived as absolutely safe, than when lending to what is perceived as risky. And that only guarantees that when something ex ante perceived as absolutely safe, ex-post turns out to be absolutely risky, that banks will stand there holding humongous failed exposures against little or no capital.

Imagine instead if the capital requirements for banks were slightly lower for what is perceived as risky than for what is perceived as absolutely safe.

That would give the banks and all their extraordinary smart number crunchers the incentives to actively go out and look for opportunities in lending to the small and medium businesses, the entrepreneurs, the start-ups. Can you imagine what that could do to the dynamism of our real economy and the creation of jobs?

Yes I hear you “But would that not increase the risk for the banking system?” No! on two counts.

First, let us not forget we are talking here about exposures to what is perceived as “risky”, meaning Mark Twain’s banker unwillingly lending out the umbrella when it rains, and not about the truly potentially dangerous exposures to what is perceived as absolutely safe, meaning Mark Twain’s banker eagerly lending out the umbrella when the sun shines.

Second, let us not forget that there is nothing better to keep a banking system safe, than a healthy and sturdy real economy, and that no banks could survive, no matter how safe, if the real economy really comes tumbling down.

Friends, do not our young unemployed youngsters deserve some more daring bank regulations?

I sure think so.

The complaint I presented to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB

Introduced by means of: https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/tellyourstory

I refer to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) in order to present the following complaint: 

Banks consider credit risk information, like that contained in credit ratings, when setting interest rates, amount of loans and other contractual terms… this causes a natural market based discrimination of those perceived as risky. We all know well Mark Twain’s description of a banker: that as the one who lends you the umbrella when the sun shines, and wants it back, urgently, when it looks like it is going to rain. 

But when bank regulators use the same credit risk information, in order to also determine the capital requirements for the banks, then they produce artificial regulatory discrimination in favor (a subsidy) of those already favored by being perceived as not risky, and against (a tax) those already being disfavored by being perceived as risky. And I argue that this regulatory discrimination is contrary to the spirit of the Equal Opportunity for Credit. 

The discrimination occurs in the following way. If a bank is allowed to have less capital when lending to the not risky that signifies he can leverage its equity more and therefore obtain larger returns on equity when lending to the “not-risky”. If a bank is forced to have more capital when lending to the risky that signifies it can leverage less its equity and therefore obtains lesser returns on equity when lending to those perceived as “risky”. To make up for this regulation and present the banks with the same opportunity of returns on their equity, the “risky” need to pay an additional interest rate, and this additional is quite substantial. 

The capital requirement regulations are explained in terms of making the banks safer, but that is not the case, in fact it makes the banks more unsafe. There has never ever been a major bank crisis that has resulted from excessive exposures to what was perceived as risky, think of Mark Twain’s banker, they have all resulted from excessive exposures to what was ex ante considered not risky, but, ex post, turn out to be very risky. And in that respect it allows for excessive leverage buildup precisely in those areas that contain the greatest risk and consequences of bad surprises, namely the lending to what is perceived as “not-risky”. 

Let me just end by commenting on the great contradiction that the discrimination of those perceived as risky, like the small businesses and entrepreneurs, really signifies in “a land of the brave”. 

Please help stop that odious discrimination. To deny those perceived as risky fair access to bank credit, is an act of regulatory violence.

PS. Just in case, the returns on equity I speak of are of course the risk-adjusted ones.

PS. You doubt what I say? Ask regulators these questions.

Lord Turner, please help save the world from our financial regulators´ regulatory exuberance!

In June 2010, during a conference given by Adair Turner at the Brookings Institute, I asked the following: 

1:20:07 MR. KAROFSKY: Pere Karofsky (In the transcripts that's me) from the Voice of Noise Foundation (You can also hear it in the audio).

"Big companies in consolidated sectors, like BP in oil, tend to have much better credit ratings than those participating in developing markets like wind energy. Do you really think the banks will perform better their societal capital allocation role if regulators allow them to have much lower capital requirements when lending to the consolidated sectors than when lending to the developing? Do you think we can reach a meaningful financial regulatory reform without opening up the discussion on the issue of risk in development? I mean to combat the regulatory exuberance of the Basel Committee."

1:26:08 To that Lord Turner responded: "The point about lending to large companies development, I'm not sure. I'm trying to think about that. I mean we try to develop risk weights which are truly related to the underlying risks. And the fact is that on the whole lending to small and medium enterprises does show up as having both a higher expected loss but also a greater variance of loss. And, of course, capital is there to absorb unexpected loss or either variance of loss rather than the expected loss. I think, therefore, it's quite difficult for us to be as regulators, skewing the risk weights to achieve, as it were, developmental goals. There are some developmental goals, for instance, in a renewable energy, which I'm very committed to wearing one of my other hats on climate change, where I do think you may need to do, you know, in a straight public subsidy rather than believing that we can do it through the indirect mechanism of the risk weights. So I may have misunderstood your question, but I'm sort of cautious of the sort of the leap to introducing developmental roles into -- I think we, as regulators, have to focus simply on how risky actually is it?"

I replied (not authorized, perhaps even rudely) the following: 1:27:19 

"But you do do make all regulatory discrimination based on credit risk and that risk is just one of the many risk we face".

My prime conclusion of it all was that when Lord Turner states "capital is there to absorb unexpected loss, or either variance of loss rather than the expected loss" he does not understand the sillines of estimating unexpected loss using expected loss. The safer something is perceived de facto de larger its potential to deliver unexpected losses. And he also does not understand the purposelessness of weighing capital requirements based on one of the only risks banks have already cleared for, by means of risk premiums and the size of the exposure

And on June 22, 2010 I sent Lord Turner the following letter:

Dear Lord Turner.

In November 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 at the end will cause the collapse of the last standing bank in the world.”

There has never ever been a major or systemic bank crisis that has resulted from the banks being involved with what ex-ante was perceived as risky; they all resulted from lending and investing in what ex-ante was considered as not risky, given the returns offered. 

But then came the Basel Committee regulators and, to top it up, lowered the capital requirements for what ex-ante is perceived by the credit rating agencies as having lower risks, which of course increased the banks’ expected ex-ante returns from pursuing these “low risk” opportunities. 

And now, when two years after an explosion that resulted from so many banks following the minuscule capital requirements when investing in securities collateralized with subprime mortgages; and there is a bank explosion awaiting round the corner because of the minuscule capital requirements when lending to well rated fancy sovereigns, like Greece; they keep on applying the same regulatory paradigm of risk-weighted assets, we can only deduct that our financial regulators simply do not get it, not even ex-post.

Please, Lord Turner, help save the world from our financial regulators´ regulatory exuberance!

Regards

Per Kurowski

A former Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004)

I received and answer but since its states "This communication and any attachments contains information which is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege" I refrain from making it known unless I am duly authorized.

But I then answered:

Dear Lord Turner

Yes, we met yesterday at Brookings... and it is not only that “our ability to know ex ante what is low and high risk is clearly limited and we have undoubtedly placed too much faith in apparently sophisticated but conceptually flawed VAR type approaches” but that, ex-post, the most benign risk for the society, might be the risk of default on which the regulators concentrate exclusively.

Think about the horror or a world without defaults and with corporations and banks becoming larger and larger. What about the risks of our banks not performing efficiently their role in allocating capitals?

By the way, lending to Greece and BP required the banks to have only 1.6 percent in capital.

Regards

Per Kurowski

To that I received no answer.