Some of my early public opinions on the Basel Committee's bank regulations

Background: It was John Kenneth Galbraith with his "Money: Whence it came, where it went” (1975), plus the fact that in Venezuela, my homeland, as a corporate strategy and financial advisor I began to receive some very bad vibes from bank regulations coming out from Basel, that got me hooked on this theme. I quote Galbraith:

"Banks opened and closed doors and bankruptcies were frequent, but as a consequence of agile and flexible credit policies, even the banks that failed left a wake of development in their passing"

"As the regulations affecting the activities of the banking sector are increased, the possibilities of this democratization of capital would decrease. There is obviously a risk in lending to the poor."

June 1997, in an Op-Ed Venezuela “If we insist in maintaining a defeatist attitude which definitely does not represent a vision of growth for the future, we will most likely end up with the most reserved and solid banking sector in the world, adequately dressed in very conservative business suits, but presiding over the funeral of the economy. I would much prefer the regulators to put some blue jeans on and try to help to get the economy moving.”

October 1998, Op-Ed Venezuela: “In many cases even trying to regulate banks runs the risk of giving the impression that by means of strict regulations, the risks have disappeared. Sometimes it is good faith... sometimes it is only pure faith… Frequently, in matters of financial regulations, the most honest, logical and efficient is simply to alert about the risks and allow the market, by assigning prices for them, to develop its own paths. I do not propose, not for a moment, that the State abandons completely the regulatory functions, much the opposite, what I propose is that it assumes it correctly. History is full of examples of where the State, by meddling to avoid damages, caused infinite larger damages”

November 1999, Op-Ed Venezuela: “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 will cause its collapse”

July 2000. Extracted and translated from Op-Ed in Venezuela: "Financial regulations. Banking, in addition to promoting savings, offering reasonable returns and certainty of recovery, must fulfill the functions of supporting economic growth and democratizing access to capital. In terms of banking regulation, it would seem that the country has forgotten these last two functions, accepting, without blinking, the Basel regulations, much more appropriate for the banking of an already developed country than for ours. There is nothing wrong with being a developing country, what is wrong is believing that by simply adopting different positions, you can reach another level of maturity – like a little girl who borrows her mother's lipstick to feel grown up."

March 2001, Op-Ed Venezuela: “Beware of bank consolidation” (an early manifestation against too big too fail and govern banks, and against too few bank regulation criteria) “Today, when the world seems to be asking much for bank mergers or consolidations, I wonder if we on the contrary should be imposing on banks special reserves depending on their size. The bigger the bank is, the worse the fall, and the greater our need to avoid being hurt”

September 2002, Op-Ed Venezuela: “The riskiness of country risk: What a nightmare it must be to be a sovereign risk evaluator! If they underestimate the risk of a given country, it will most assuredly be inundated with fresh loans and leveraged to the hilt. If on the contrary, they exaggerate the country’s risk level, it can only result in making access to international financial markets more difficult and expensive. Any mistake will turn out to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any which way, either extreme will cause hunger and human misery.”

January 2003, while an ED of the World Bank, in a letter published by the Financial Times: “Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic errors, about to be propagated at modern speeds”

March 2003, in a formal discussion at the Executive Board of the World Bank: “The financial sector’s role, the reason why it is granted a license to operate, is to assist society in promoting economic growth by stimulating savings, efficiently allocating financial resources satisfying credit needs and creating opportunities for wealth distribution. Similarly, the role of the assessor –in this case, the World Bank– is to fight poverty, and development is a task where risks need to be taken.

From this perspective I have the impression that the Financial Assessment Program Report might revolve too much around issues such as risk avoidance, vulnerabilities, stress tests and compliance with international regulations, without referring sufficiently to how the sector is performing its social commitments.

Risk aversion comes at a cost - a cost that might be acceptable for developed and industrialized countries but that might be too high for poor and developing ones. In this respect the Bank has the responsibility of helping developing countries to strike the right balance between risks and growth possibilities…. In this respect let us not forget that the other side of the Basel [Committee’s regulatory risk weighted capital requirements] coin might be many, many developing opportunities in credit foregone.

The sole chance the world has of avoiding the risk that entities such as the Basel Committee, accounting standard boards and credit rating agencies introduce serious and fatal systemic risks, is by having an entity like the World Bank stand up to them, instead of sort of fatalistically accepting their dictates."

April 2003, in a formal written statement delivered as an ED of the World Bank: “The Basel Committee dictate norms for the banking industry… there is a clear need for an external observer of stature to assure that there is an adequate equilibrium between risk-avoidance and the risk- taking needed to sustain growth.”

April 2003, commenting on the World Bank's Strategic Framework 04-06 "A mixture of thousand solutions, many of them inadequate, may lead to a flexible world that can bend with the storms. A world obsessed with Best Practices may calcify its structure and break with any small wind."

"Nowadays, when information is just too voluminous and fast to handle, market or authorities have decided to delegate the evaluation of it into the hands of much fewer players such as the credit rating agencies. This will, almost by definition, introduce systemic risks in the market"

May 2003, in comments made at a workshop for regulators at the World Bank:  There is a thesis that holds that the old agricultural traditions of burning a little each year, thereby getting rid of some of the combustible materials, was much wiser than today’s no burning at all, that only allows for the buildup of more incendiary materials, thereby guaranteeing disaster and scorched earth, when fire finally breaks out, as it does, sooner or later. 

Therefore a regulation that regulates less, but is more active and trigger-happy, and treats a bank failure as something normal, as it should be, could be a much more effective regulation. The avoidance of a crisis, by any means, might strangely lead us to the one and only bank, therefore setting us up for the mother of all moral hazards—just to proceed later to the mother of all bank crises. 

Knowing that “the larger they are, the harder they fall,” if I were regulator, I would be thinking about a progressive tax on size”

May 2003, in the same workshop above: “Be careful, when looking for ways of avoiding a bank crisis, you could be inadvertently slowing development. I have been sitting here for most of these five days without being able to detect a single formula or word indicating that growth and credits are also a function of bank regulations.” 

May 2003, Op-Ed Venezuela: “In a world that preaches the worth of the invisible hands of the market, with its millions of mini-regulators, we find it so strange that the Basel Committee delegates, without protest heard, so much responsibility in the hand of so very few and human-fallible credit rating agencies… Perhaps we need to include a label that states: Warning excessive banking regulations from the Basel Committee can be very dangerous for the development of your country”

Paraphrasing George Clemenceau: Regulation of the financial system is too important to be left in the hands of regulators and bankers.

October 2004, in a written statement delivered as an ED at the Board of the World Bank: “We believe that much of the world’s financial markets are currently being dangerously overstretched, through an exaggerated reliance on intrinsically weak financial models, based on very short series of statistical evidence and very doubtful volatility assumptions”

November 2004, in a letter published by the Financial Times: “Our bank supervisors in Basel are unwittingly controlling the capital flows in the world. How many Basel propositions will it take before they start realizing the damage they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector (sovereigns)? In some developing countries, access to credit for the private sector is all but gone, and the banks are up to the hilt in public credits. Please, help us get some diversity of thinking to Basel urgently; at the moment it is just a mutual admiration club of firefighters”

PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board

PS. Here is a current summary of why I know the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, is utter and dangerous nonsense.

The mutual admiration club of firefighters in Basel

My statement on IBRD's Liquidity Management and Borrowing Program

We join in the chorus of praise of the World Bank Group's "Financial Complex." It is precisely because they could just become too good for our own sake, and thereby fall into the human traps of complacency and excess of confidence, that we need to put forward some comments, in order to pinch.

Phrases such as "absolute risk-free arbitrage income opportunities" should be banned in our "Knowledge Bank." We believe that much of the world's financial markets are currently being dangerously overstretched through an exaggerated reliance on intrinsically weak financial models that are based on short series of statistical evidence and doubtful volatility assumptions.

Just as an example, we should not forget how all the risk assessment models had to be recalibrated to take into account for Argentina.

If the "Financial Complex" identifies an arbitrage opportunity where it feels reasonably confident that it can close out positions in a brief period and register a profit, so be it. However, some important opportunity costs of keeping arbitrage positions on book might be present, and we feel they are not sufficiently considered in the current presentation.

Specifically, the Review of IBRD Liquidity Policy of March 2000 refers in paragraph 15 and 16 to the value of "borrowing flexibility", but primarily to discuss this issue in terms of the need to borrow while the conditions are good and the markets are not closed. In our opinion, we should also look at the other side of the coin, as the opportunity cost of borrowing today should also reflect the possibility that we could perhaps obtain even better conditions tomorrow. The finance department itself points to this when it refers to "record sub-Libor rates during the Asia Crisis as a consequence of the flight to safe haven."

We all share the concern of lower lending activity in the Bank but, form another perspective, this could in fact allow us to assist more forcefully when needs really are present. Clearly, we are not a "lender of last resort." but I believe we need to reflect on what we could have done now had we not participated in the build-up of the debt of Argentina while their markets were open and had thereby been leveraged to help out when the crisis occurred. US$10 billion, in long-term loans from the World Bank, would have provided more than enough incentives to achieve a satisfactorily restructuring of the current debt of Argentina (and the only conditionality would of course have been asking Argentina not to incur in more public debt, but allowing the private sector to breathe).

In good times the differences in basis points of the funding costs between the World Bank and Argentina might have been, say, 100, while in bad times they might easily have reached 2000. You tell me... when is the right moment for the World Bank to help out?

I saw something. I said something. No one listened. C'est la vie?

October 1998, Op-Ed Venezuela: History is full of examples of where the State, by meddling to avoid damages, caused infinite larger damages”

November 1999, Op-Ed Venezuela: “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 will cause its collapse”

January 2003 in a letter published by the Financial Times: "Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic error to be propagated at modern speeds. Friends, please consider that the world is tough enough as it is."

March 2003, in a formal discussion as and Executive Director (ED) at the Executive Board of the World Bank: The sole chance the world has of avoiding the risk that Bank Regulators in Basel, accounting standard boards, and credit-rating agencies will introduce serious and fatal systemic risks into the world, is by having an entity like the World Bank stand up to them—instead of rather fatalistically accepting their dictates and duly harmonizing with the IMF.

April 2003, in a formal written statement delivered as an ED of the World Bank: “Ages ago, when information was less available and moved at a slower pace, the market consisted of a myriad of individual agents acting on limited information basis. Nowadays, when information is just too voluminous and fast to handle, market or authorities have decided to delegate the evaluation of it into the hands of much fewer players such as the credit rating agencies. This will, almost by definition, introduce systemic risks in the market and we are already able to discern some of the victims, although they are just the tip of an iceberg. 

May 2003 In a workshop for bank regulators at the World Bank I simply cannot understand how a world that preaches the value of the invisible hand of millions of market agents can then go out and delegate so much regulatory power to a limited number of human and very fallible credit-rating agencies. This sure must be setting us up for the mother of all systemic errors.

May 2003, Op-Ed Venezuela: “Perhaps we need to include a label that states: Warning excessive banking regulations from the Basel Committee can be very dangerous for the development of your country”

June 2004 “Central bank governors and the heads of bank supervisory authorities in the Group of Ten (G10) countries met today and endorsed Basel II” the publication of the International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: a Revised Framework, the new capital adequacy framework commonly known as Basel II… It’s lunacy

G10 signs up on Basel II

Central bank governors and the heads of bank supervisory authorities in the Group of Ten (G10) countries met today and endorsed the publication of the International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: a Revised Framework, the new capital adequacy framework commonly known as Basel II. The meeting took place at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, one day after the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the author of the text, approved its submission to the governors and supervisors for review.

The Basel II Framework sets out the details for adopting more risk-sensitive minimum capital requirements for banking organisations. The new framework reinforces these risk-sensitive requirements by laying out principles for banks to assess the adequacy of their capital and for supervisors to review such assessments to ensure banks have adequate capital to support their risks.

PS. It is lunacy!

Towards a counter cyclical Basel?

(A letter to the Financial Times that was not published)

Sir, the financial system is there to safeguard savings, to generate economic growth by channeling investments, and to promote equality by providing full and free access to capital and opportunities.

Currently, our bank regulators headquartered in Basel are primarily concerned with the first goal, that of avoiding bank collapses, and how could it be otherwise, if you have only firemen on the board that regulates building permits.

Now, one of these days, the financial system, neatly combed and dressed in a tuxedo, but lying more than seven feet under in the coffin of financial de-intermediation, is going to wake up to the fact that it needs the presence of others in Basel. At that moment, perhaps we might start hearing about flexible capital requirements, moving up to 8.2 % or down to 7.8% by region, in response to countercyclical needs.

Meanwhile it’s a shame that even their first goal might turn out to be elusive, since although the individual risks have fallen with Basel regulations, the stakes have increased, as those same regulations accelerate the tendency towards fewer and fewer banks.

Extracted from my "Voice and Noise" 2006

Odious credit

I recently wrote about odious foreign public debt, that debt about which there is a current debate in the world as to whether it can be legally repudiated if it is taken on by illegitimate governments or for illegitimate ends. The other side of the coin is odious credit. Please don’t think I’m against banks—quite the opposite. But I respect the role of the financial middlemen too highly to keep quiet when they are not doing their job right. 

In 1981, the representative of a foreign bank in Venezuela showed me a letter in which his boss instructed him to “give credit to the INAVI, Venezuela’s National Housing Institute. It’s the worst public institution, which means that it pays us the highest rate and, as you know, in the end it’s just as public as the best of them and Venezuela will have to pay up just the same.” Odious credit, isn’t it?

The first thing a good banker should ask a client applying for a loan is what is it for and if the answer is not satisfactory he should reject the application, regardless of the guarantees offered. Simple plain-vanilla fraud of the Parmalat kind will always exist, but the asinine way all their creditors fell into the trap makes one suspect that this is only the first case of systemic risk in the banking system: tempted by the regulators in Basel, banks subordinate their own criteria to those dictated by auditors and credit raters. This development, bad in itself, is even more serious in the case of public credit, where the what it’s for is being replaced by how much can be carried, perversely derived by calculating the level of sustainable public debt.

When I call for the total elimination of foreign public debt (which is feasible and would not require huge sacrifices in an oil rich land like Venezuela) my colleagues often argue that a certain level of debt is good and necessary for the country. This does not convince me, since it makes debt sound like electricity that must be kept at a certain voltage. Because public debt must always be paid back, regardless of whether anybody ever knew what or whom it was for, I’m fighting for the day when the private sector in Venezuela can return to the markets, freely, without having to carry that huge monkey—foreign public debt—on its back.

In my opinion, the Benemérito (the dictator Juan Vicente Gómez (1864–1935) who ruled the country between 1908 and 1935) deserved great credit for ridding Venezuela of her foreign debts He certainly knew that to shake off that vice more than patches or pieces of chewing gum are needed.

From El Universal, Caracas, April 22, 2004

About the Global Bank Insolvency Initiative

(An informal email sent in 2004 to my then colleagues Executive Directors of the World Bank.)

Dear Friends,

We recently had a technical briefing about the Global Bank Insolvency Initiative. Having had a special interest in this subject for some years, I wish to make some comments.

As I have always seen it, the costs related to a bank crisis are the following three:

The actual direct losses of the banks at the outbreak of the crisis. These are represented by all those existing loans that are irrevocably bad loans and therefore losses without a doubt.

The losses derived from mismanaging the interventions (workout costs). These include, for example, losses derived from not allowing some of the existing bad loans the time to work themselves out of their problems. They also include all the extraordinary legal expenses generated by any bank intervention in which regulators in charge want to make sure that they themselves are not exposed to any risk at all.

The long-term losses to the economy resulting from the “Financial Regulatory Puritanism,” that tends to follow in the wake of a bank crisis as thousands of growth opportunities are not financed because of the attitude “we need to avoid a new bank crisis at any cost.”

For the sake of the argument, I have hypothesized that each of these individual costs represents approximately a third of the total cost. Actually, having experienced a bank crisis at very close range, I am convinced that the first of the three above costs is the smallest ... but I guess that might be just too politically incorrect to pursue further at this moment.

In this respect, it is clear that any initiative that aims to reduce the workout costs of bank insolvency is always welcome and in fact the current draft contains many well-argued and interesting comments, which bodes well for its final findings and suggestions.

That said, the scope of the initiative might be somewhat limited and outdated, making it difficult to realize its full potential benefits. There is also the danger that an excessive regulatory bias will taint its findings.

Traditional financial systems, represented by many small local banks dedicated to very basic and standard commercial credits, and subject to normally quite lax local regulation and supervision, are mostly extinct.

They are being replaced by a system with fewer and bigger global bank conglomerates governed by a global Basel-inspired regulatory framework and they operate frequently by transforming the economic realities of their portfolios through mechanisms and instruments (derivatives) that are hard to understand even for savvy financial experts.

In this respect I believe that instead of dedicating scarce resources to what in some ways could be deemed to be financial archaeology, we should confront the new market realities head on, making them an explicit objective of this global initiative. For instance, what on earth is a small country to do if an international bank that has 30% of the local bank deposits goes belly up?

We all know that the financial sector, besides having to provide security for its depositors, needs also to contribute toward economic growth and social justice, by providing efficient financial intermediation and equal opportunities of access to capital. Unfortunately, both these last two objectives seem to have been relegated to a very distant plane, as the whole debate has been captured by regulators that seem only to worry about avoiding a bank crisis. Unfortunately, it seems that the initiative, by relying exclusively on professionals related to banking supervision, does little to break out from this incestuous trap. By the way if you want to see about conflict of interest, then read the section “Legal protection of banking authorities and their staff.” It relates exactly to those wide blanket indemnities that we so much criticize elsewhere.

And so, friends, I see this Global Bank Insolvency Initiative as a splendid opportunity to broaden the debate about the world’s financial systems and create the much needed checks and balances to Basel. However, nothing will come out of it if we just delegate everything to the hands of the usual suspects. By the way, and I will say it over and over again, in terms of this debate, we, the World Bank, should constitute the de facto check and balance on the International Monetary Fund. That is a role we should not be allowed to ignore—especially in the name of harmonization.

A letter to my colleagues on the "Global Insolvency Initiative"

Dear Friends,

We recently had a technical briefing about the Global Bank Insolvency Initiative. Having had a special interest in this subject for some years, I wish to make some comments.

As I have always seen it, the costs related to a bank crisis are the following three:

• The actual direct losses of the banks at the outbreak of the crisis. These are represented by all those existing loans that are irrevocably bad loans and therefore losses without a doubt.

• The losses derived from mismanaging the interventions (workout costs). These include, for example, losses derived from not allowing some of the existing bad loans the time to work themselves out of their problems. They also include all the extraordinary legal expenses generated by any bank intervention in which regulators in charge want to make sure that they themselves are not exposed to any risk at all.

• The long-term losses to the economy resulting from the “Financial Regulatory Puritanism,” that tends to follow in the wake of a bank crisis as thousands of growth opportunities are not financed because of the attitude “we need to avoid a new bank crisis at any cost.”

For the sake of the argument, I have hypothesized that each of these individual costs represents approximately a third of the total cost. Actually, having experienced a bank crisis at very close range, I am convinced that the first of the three above costs is the smallest ... but I guess that might be just too politically incorrect to pursue further at this moment.

In this respect, it is clear that any initiative that aims to reduce the workout costs of bank insolvency is always welcome and in fact the current draft contains many well-argued and interesting comments, which bodes well for its final findings and suggestions.

That said, the scope of the initiative might be somewhat limited and outdated, making it difficult to realize its full potential benefits. There is also the danger that an excessive regulatory bias will taint its findings.

Traditional financial systems, represented by many small local banks dedicated to very basic and standard commercial credits, and subject to normally quite lax local regulation and supervision, are mostly extinct. They are being replaced by a system with fewer and bigger global bank conglomerates governed by a global Basel-inspired regulatory framework and they operate frequently by transforming the Economic realities of their portfolios through mechanisms and instruments (derivatives) that are hard to understand even for savvy financial experts.

In this respect I believe that instead of dedicating scarce resources to what in some ways could be deemed to be financial archaeology, we should confront the new market realities head on, making them an explicit objective of this global initiative. For instance, what on earth is a small country to do if an international bank that has 30% of the local bank deposits goes belly up?

We all know that the financial sector, besides having to provide security for its depositors, needs also to contribute toward economic growth and social justice, by providing efficient financial intermediation and equal opportunities of access to capital. Unfortunately, both these last two objectives seem to have been relegated to a very distant plane, as the whole debate has been captured by regulators that seem only to worry about avoiding a bank crisis. Unfortunately, it seems that the initiative, by relying exclusively on professionals related to banking supervision, does little to break out from this incestuous trap. By the way if you want to see about conflict of interest, then read the section “Legal protection of banking authorities and their staff.” It relates exactly to those wide blanket indemnities that we so much criticize elsewhere.

And so, friends, I see this Global Bank Insolvency Initiative as a splendid opportunity to broaden the debate about the world’s financial systems and create the much needed checks and balances to Basel. However, nothing will come out of it if we just delegate everything to the hands of the usual suspects. By the way, and I will say it over and over again, in terms of this debate, we, the World Bank, should constitute the de facto check and balance on the International Monetary Fund. That is a role we should not be allowed to ignore—especially in the name of harmonization.

Warning about Basel bank regulations

Denying a loan for only seeking to reduce the vulnerability of the financial system could mean the loss of a unique opportunity to achieve economic growth.

All development involves risks, so its path, by definition, is littered with bankruptcies and tears, framed in the human oscillation of one little step forward and 0.99 little steps back. Perhaps then the best way to regulate is to allow some banks to fail, too, before their problems have calcified or become too great.

Developed countries may never have developed under the yoke of puritanical financial regulation, hence my insistence since 1997 on the need for the development perspective to be considered when regulating. Paraphrasing someone; regulation of the financial system is too important to be left in the hands of regulators and bankers. (See note)

Furthermore, in a world that so much preaches the benefits of the invisible hand of the market, with its millions of mini-regulators, we are surprised that Basel delegates, without question, so much responsibility in the hands of a very few and very fallible credit rating agencies.

Basel has recently come under significant criticism:

The World Bank in its 'Global Financial Development of 2003', referring to the new ways of calculating capital requirements, known as Basel 2, warns both about the risk of making access more expensive and more difficult for developing countries to financial sources, such as favoring international banks to the detriment of domestic banks.

Dr. Alexander Kern, from the University of Cambridge, recently stated at a seminar organized by the G24 (developing countries), that because standards have been developed almost exclusively by European countries (G10), they lack the transparency and legitimacy necessary to accept that they are subject to a quasi-mandatory international legalization process.

The comptroller of the United States Currency, in charge of supervising 55% of the banking system in his country, declared his disagreement with the Basel 2 regulations, and even said that they may simply ignore them.

Friends, it may be worth including in all encyclopedias issued by Basel: 'Warning, excessive banking regulations in Basel can be very detrimental to the development of your country'

Note: “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men” Georges Clemenceau

PS. Sometime later I found out about the bank capital (equity) requirements with risk weights of 0% government and 100% citizens, as if bureaucrats know better what to do with credit than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs. If I was to help finance development in developing (and in developed) countries, the first condition for doing so would be to eliminate such loony regulations.

El Universal

PS. This I wrote while being an Executive Director of the World Bank 2002-2004

PS. Mi first Op-Ed ever June 12, 1997 Puritanism in banking

PS. Most of my Op-Eds in El Universal disappeared from the web when I was censored by the new owners in 2014 

Some comments made at a Risk Management Workshop for Regulators... as an Executive Director

World Bank 2003 Risk Management Workshop for Regulators

Dear Friends,

As I know that some of my comments could expose me to clear and present dangers in the presence of so many regulators, let me start by sincerely congratulating everyone for the quality of this seminar. It has been a very formative and stimulating exercise, and we can already begin to see how Basel II is forcing bank regulators to make a real professional quantum leap. As I see it, you will have a lot of homework in the next years, brushing up on your calculus—almost a career change.

But, my friends, there is so much more to banking than reducing its vulnerability—and that’s where I will start my devil’s advocate intrusion of today.

Regulations and development.

The other side of the coin of a credit that was never granted, in order to reduce the vulnerability of the financial system, could very well be the loss of a unique opportunity for growth. In this sense, I put forward the possibility that the developed countries might not have developed as fast, or even at all, had they been regulated by a Basel [Committee].

A wider participation.

In my country, Venezuela, we refer to a complicated issue as a dry hide: when you try to put down one corner, up goes the other. And so, when looking for ways of avoiding a bank crisis, you could be inadvertently slowing development.

As developing sounds to me much more important than avoiding bank failures, I would favor a more balanced approach to regulation. Talleyrand is quoted as saying, “War is much too serious to leave to the generals.” Well, let me stick my head out, proposing that banking regulations are much too important to be left in the hands of regulators and bankers.

Friends, I have been sitting here for most of these five days without being able to detect a single formula or word indicating that growth and credits are also a function of bank regulations. But then again, it could not be any other way. Sorry! There just are no incentives for regulators to think in terms of development, and then the presence of the bankers in the process has, naturally, more to do with their own development. I believe that if something better is going to come out of Basel, a much wider representation of interests is needed.

A wider Scope.

I am convinced that the direct cost of a bank crisis can be exceeded by the costs of an inadequate workout process and the costs coming from the regulatory Puritanism that frequently hits the financial system—as an aftershock.

In this respect, I have the impression that the scope of the regulatory framework is not sufficiently wide, since the final objective of limiting the social costs cannot focus only on the accident itself, but has also to cover the hospitalization and the rehabilitation of the economy. From this perspective, an aggressive bank, always living on the edge of a crisis, would once again perhaps not be that bad, as long as the aggressive bank is adequately foreclosed and any criminal misbehavior adequately punished.

On risks.

In Against the Gods Peter L. Bernstein (John Wiley & Sons, 1996) writes that the boundary between the modern times and the past is the mastery of risk, since for those who believe that everything was in God’s hands, risk management, probability, and statistics, must have seemed quite irrelevant. Today, when seeing so much risk managing, I cannot but speculate on whether we are not leaving out God’s hand, just a little bit too much.

If the path to development is littered with bankruptcies, losses, tears, and tragedies, all framed within the human seesaw of one little step forward, and 0.99 steps back, why do we insist so much on excluding banking systems from capitalizing on the Darwinian benefits to be expected?

There is a thesis that holds that the old agricultural traditions of burning a little each year, thereby getting rid of some of the combustible materials, was much wiser than today’s no burning at all, that only allows for the buildup of more incendiary materials, thereby guaranteeing disaster and scorched earth, when fire finally breaks out, as it does, sooner or later.

Therefore a regulation that regulates less, but is more active and trigger-happy, and treats a bank failure as something normal, as it should be, could be a much more effective regulation. The avoidance of a crisis, by any means, might strangely lead us to the one and only bank, therefore setting us up for the mother of all moral hazards—just to proceed later to the mother of all bank crises.

Knowing that “the larger they are, the harder they fall,” if I were regulator, I would be thinking about a progressive tax on size. But, then again, I am not a regulator, I am just a developer.

Conspiracy?

When we observe that large banks will benefit the most with Basel II, through many risk-mitigation methods not available to the smaller banks which will need to live on with Basel I, and that even the World Bank’s “Global Development Finance 2003” speaks about an “unleveling” of the playing field for domestic banks in favor of international banks active in developing countries, I believe we have the right to ask ourselves about who were the real negotiators in Basel?

Naturally, I assume that the way the small domestic banks in the developing countries will have to deal with these new artificial comparative disadvantages is the way one deals with these issues in the World Trade Organization, namely by requesting safeguards.

Credit Ratings

Finally, just some words about the role of the Credit Rating Agencies. I simply cannot understand how a world that preaches the value of the invisible hand of millions of market agents can then go out and delegate so much regulatory power to a limited number of human and very fallible credit-rating agencies. This sure must be setting us up for the mother of all systemic errors.

The Board As for Executive Directors (such as myself), it would seem that we need to start worrying about the risk of Risk Managers doing a de facto takeover of Boards—here, there, and everywhere. Of course we also have a lot of homework to do, most especially since the devil is in the details, and risk management, as you well know, has a lot of details.

Thank you

Included in "Voice and Noise", 2006

PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board

My comments on the World Bank's Strategic Framework 04-06

"Basel dictates norms for the banking industry that might be of extreme importance for the world’s economic development. In Basel’s drive to impose more supervision and reduce vulnerabilities, there is a clear need for an external observer of stature to assure that there is an adequate equilibrium between risk-avoidance and the risk-taking needed to sustain growth. Once again, the World Bank seems to be the only suitable existing organization to assume such a role."

“Ages ago, when information was less available and moved at a slower pace, the market consisted of a myriad of individual agents acting on limited information basis. Nowadays, when information is just too voluminous and fast to handle, market or authorities have decided to delegate the evaluation of it into the hands of much fewer players such as the credit rating agencies. This will, almost by definition, introduce systemic risks in the market and we are already able to discern some of the victims, although they are just the tip of an iceberg. Once again, perhaps only the World Bank has the sufficient world standing to act in this issue.” 

"A mixture of thousand solutions, many of them inadequate, may lead to a flexible world that can bend with the storms. A world obsessed with Best Practices may calcify its structure and break with any small wind. Who could really defend the value of diversity, if not The World Bank?"

PS. A 2003 letter in the Financial Times on this systemic risk

PS. My 2019 letter to the Financial Stability Board

Financial Sector Assessments Program: Review, Lessons and Issues going forward

My written statement as an Executive Director of the World Bank, March 20, 2003

The financial sector’s role, the reason why it is granted a license to operate, is to assist society in promoting economic growth by stimulating savings, efficiently allocating financial resources satisfying credit needs and creating opportunities for wealth distribution. Similarly, the role of the assessor –in this case, the Bank– is to fight poverty, and development is a task where risks need to be taken.

From this perspective we have the impression that the Financial Assessment Program Report might revolve too much around issues such as risk avoidance, vulnerabilities, stress tests and compliance with international regulations, without referring sufficiently to how the sector is performing its social commitments.

As an example, only in Supplement 3, Development Issues in the FSAP, does the Bank acknowledge that; “for lower income countries with less-developed financial system, in order to be relevant to country authorities, the emphasis in the FASP must change… how residents can get a better access to a wider range of financial services”, having to confess, in the very same page, that “no formal methodologies exist for how to address development issues in the FSAP”.

Another example is present in the survey of countries’ experiences (Supplement 2), when in the case of Armenia, page 6, in response to the problems of “(i) weak credit culture with the prevalence of non-payments mechanism that undermine the development of the formal financial sector; (ii) limited access to formal, affordable financing by small and medium enterprises, a typical development trap in transition economies; and (iii) the slow pace of banking sector consolidation”, the only exemplified recommendations are; “(i) enhancement of the central bank’s ability to deal with insolvent banks, (ii) strengthening of penalty provisions and (iii) increase in minimum capital requirements”, 

On a separate issue, the document Global Development Finance 2003 discussed last week and in relation to the minimum capital requirements of the Basel II proposals, states that they “include the likelihood of increased costs of capital to emerging market economies; and an “unleveling” of the playing fields for domestic banking in favor of international banks active in developing countries”. We believe that this issue, and similar ones, should be addressed in many FSAPs, specially as the Bank could perhaps act as an honest broker in such matters.

Dear staff, management and colleagues, it is an appropriate time to remember Roosevelt when he said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” and so, repeating what we have said in may other occasions, we have to find ways of helping the Knowledge Bank evolve into the Wisdom Bank or, more humbly, the Common Sense Bank.

Thank You

Oral Statement:

Mr. Chairman, although we already made a written statement, there are some brief comments that I wish to make in order to better illustrate our concerns, so please bear with me.

In Supplement 2, the Survey of Country Experiences, I believe that it is quite illustrative, that in the very, very first example listed: “After identifying the following problems: weak credit culture with a prevalence of nonpayment mechanisms that undermine the development of the formal financial sector; limited access to formal, affordable finance by small and medium enterprises; and the slow pace of banking sector consolidation”, the only recommendation put forward to the country in that example are: “enhancement of central bank’s ability to deal with involvement bank; strengthening of penalty provisions; and increase in minimal capital requirements.”

I don’t think that those are just the answers that should come from a development institution. We all know that risk aversion comes at a cost - a cost that might be acceptable for developed and industrialized countries but that might be too high for poor and developing ones. In this respect the Bank has the responsibility of helping developing countries to strike the right balance between risks and growth possibilities.

In this respect let us not forget that the other side of the Basel [Committee’s regulatory risk weighted capital requirements] coin might be many, many developing opportunities in credit foregone.

Why do I make these comments with such candor? Because personally I have been learning for many years the consequences of a financial puritanism that seems to be invading the world and that does not get the real culprits, either. In the specific case of my country [Venezuela] the commercial banks credit portfolio fell in real terms from about $16bn in 1982 to only about $4bn in 1997.

In such a scenario, to hear about Basel [Committee] and its regulations reminds one of the make up of an already rigor-morted corpse, although we must admit that in the case of this particular corpse, we should know that even almost six feet under, it has been able anyhow to generate surprisingly large profits. 

I am certain that funds invested in FSAPs are very well invested funds, as fully attests that all the countries in my constituency to have done it. Nonetheless, in the area of risk management of finance, it might be an appropriate time to remember Roosevelt and that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

And so, repeating what I have said on some other occasion in this particular respect, I believe that we truly have to find a way of helping the Knowledge Bank to try to evolve into something more of a Wisdom Bank, or, to put it more humbly, at least a “common sense Bank.

Lets start by making sure these Financial Sector Assessment Programs are true development tools. In this respect I would really like to make a brief reference to the issue of collaboration with the Fund. I think this is a particularly clear case that shows where the collaboration should perhaps not be that intense, because as a development unit, we have to look at the growth potential of the sector, the development side, and they probably have to look at the safety side. And it is between this type of balance and continuing balance that we can really assist.

Finally on a related issue, last week in a seminar on housing finance we heard that Basel is getting to be a big rulebook—this was said by the Bank. And, to tell you the truth, the sole chance the world has of avoiding the risk that Bank Regulators in Basel, accounting standard boards, and credit-rating agencies will introduce serious and fatal systemic risks into the world, is by having an entity like the World Bank stand up to them—instead of rather fatalistically accepting their dictates and duly harmonizing with the International Monetary Fund.

As an example the Bank has for some time unsuccessfully been trying to argue with the accounting boards that, following their current rulings is not the best way of reflecting the Banks’ own financial reality. Well if the Bank has difficulties, imagine the rest of the world.

Thank you.

PS. Are the bank regulations coming from Basle good for development?

The document that I presented at the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Developing at the United Nations, New York, October 2007

My comments on World Bank's "Global Development Finance 2003"

Chapter 3. Coping with Weak Private Debt Flows. 

Argentina’s External Debt furnace was stoked over a long period of time by high ratings issued by the credit rating agencies who, when they awoke surprised by the resulting mountains of debt, speedily reversed themselves 180 degrees, putting new pressure on interest rates and reinforcing the tragedy of a self-fulfilling prophecies.

Venezuela, even though during the last couple of years has had a very low public external debt, less than 30% of GDP, which it has been servicing, has in a continuum been brought down to a highly speculative CCC rating, and has probably no alternative except that of waiting for a de-rating, the day the credit agencies happen to discover that it no longer has any outstanding debt. 

We make these somewhat exaggerated examples so as to remark the fact that, in this otherwise very complete Global Development Finance 2003, there is no mention about the issue of the growing role of the Independent Credit Rating Agencies, and the systemic risks that might so be induced, when they are called to intervene and direct more and more the world’s capital flows. 

It is not a small issue. Today many insurance companies and pension funds are already limited by the credit ratings for their investments and, for banks, we are only told things will get worse. 

For instance, Basel II, page 47, states “risk weights would be set for a bank’s exposure to sovereigns, corporations, and other banks based on ratings from major credit-rating agencies… the new methods of assessing the minimum-capital requirement is expected to have important implications for emerging-market economies, principally because capital charges for credit risks will be explicitly linked to indicators of credit quality… the regulatory capital requirements would be significantly higher in the case of non-investment grade emerging borrowers than under Basel I", plus finally “The current proposal places project loans in a higher risk category than corporate loans”. 

The sole fact that emerging countries, when affected by lower credit ratings, face additional difficulties to access investors with availability of long term financing, forces them into more short term arrangements which, compounded by the much higher rates charged, almost guarantee a crisis, once the snowball starts rolling. 

Chapter 3 dedicates six full pages to the interesting issue of the search for better crisis management, especially the problems surrounding sovereign debt restructuring. We commend this discussion as we agree with the statement that “Debt crisis have severe implications for the poor, who had no role in making decisions on borrowing” but, this only highlights the importance of carefully identifying, reviewing and correcting the factors that might lead to a crisis. 

We would also like to make a comment with respect to “Bank retrenchment in context”, page 45. It is said that “The significant presence of BIS-area deposit taking institutions is one of the most important ways in which the poorest developing countries” and that their presence “should improve the efficiency of the local financial intermediation system” but then, on page 47, Basle II, we read that “If, as expected, most domestically owned banks in emerging market economies adopt the standardized approach to credit risk, they will be at a comparative disadvantage vis-à-vis cross border lending by international banks when attempting to lend to high quality domestic borrowers”. There is a clear conflict between those two statements inasmuch the “comparative disadvantage” might justly be interpreted only as a disadvantage unfairly decreed by Basle, something which relates poorly to improving the efficiency of the local market. 

With respect to Basle, we would also like to point out that the document does not analyze at all a very fundamental risk for the whole issue of Development Finance, being it that the whole regulatory framework coming out of the BCBS might possibly put a lid on development finance, as a result of being more biased in favor of safety of deposits as compared to the need for growth. Even though, in theory, we could agree that there should be no conflict between safety and growth, in practice there might very well be, most specially when the approach taken is by substituting the market with a few fallible credit rating agencies. 

We would also like to comment with respect to credit derivatives. This market for credit risk transfer, that between 1997 and 2002 has “expanded more than ten-fold… reaching $ 2 trillion in outstanding notional value, expected to increase to US$ 4.8 trillion by end of 2004” and “yet the use of credit derivatives to manage risk is still only about 2 percent of their use in managing interest rate and currency risk” carries its own very clear and present danger of blindfolding the market as to where the real risks are truly allocated. Recently, and in relation to the losses from energy trading and their related derivatives, there have been reports that markets are still unsure on where the losses are finally going to surface… and be paid for. 

As the financial sector grows ever more sophisticated, making it less and less transparent and more difficult to understand for ordinary human beings, like EDs, it is of extreme importance that the World Bank remains prudently skeptical and vigilant, and not be carried away by the glamour of sophistication. In this particular sense, we truly believe that the World Bank has a role to play that is much more important than providing knowledge per-se and that is the role of looking on how to supply the wisdom-of-last-resort.

A new breed of systemic errors

Sir, except for regulations relative to money laundering, the developing countries have been told to keep the capital markets open and to give free access to all investors, no matter what their intentions are, and no matter for how long or short they intend to stay.

Simultaneously the developed countries have, through the use of credit-rating agencies, imposed restrictions as to what developing countries are allowed to be visited by their banks and investors.

That two-faced Janus syndrome, “you must trust the market while we must distrust it,” has created serious problems, not the least by leveraging the rate differentials between those liked and those rejected by our financial censors. Today, whenever a country loses its investment-grade rating, many investors are prohibited from investing in its debt, effectively curtailing demand for those debt instruments, just when that country might need it the most, just when that country can afford it the least.

Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic errors, about to be propagated at modern speeds. Friends, as it is, the world is tough enough.

The Riskiness of Country Risk

How horrible it must be to work as an air-traffic controller! Any slight error can provoke an unimaginable human tragedy. No wonder these professionals burn out so rapidly. I “suppose” the same must happen with the country-risk assessors, those people who carefully pass judgment as to what the country risk is for any given nation.

The all important mission of these risk evaluators is twofold. The first, that for which they are actually paid, consists of analyzing whether or not the debtor nation will ultimately be able to honor its obligations. This determines whether or not pension funds, banks, and insurance companies will be willing, or even allowed, to invest in that country’s sovereign debt instruments. The second, even more important than the first, is to send subtle signals to the governments of these nations in order to help them improve their performance.

What a difficult job this is! If they overdo it and underestimate the risk of a given country, the latter will most assuredly be inundated with fresh loans and will be leveraged to the hilt. The result will be a serious wave of adjustments sometime down the line. If on the contrary, they exaggerate the country’s risk level, it can only result in a reduction in the market value of the national debt, increasing interest expense and making access to international financial markets difficult. The initial mistake will unfortunately turn out to be true, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any which way, either extreme will cause hunger and human misery.

What a nightmare it must be to be risk evaluator! Imagine trying to get some shuteye while lying awake in bed thinking that any moment one of those judges, those with the global reach that have a say in anything and everything, determinates that a country has become essentially bankrupt due to your mistake, and then drags you kicking and screaming before an International Court, accused of violating human rights. If I were to be in the position of evaluating country risk, I would insure that the process is totally transparent, even though this takes away some of the shine of the profession and obligates me to sacrifice some of my personal market value.

How lucky we are that we are neither air-traffic controllers nor sovereign-risk evaluators! However, since we can easily become victims of their missteps, it behooves us, if only because of our survival instinct, to make sure that both do their jobs correctly.

We have seen in recent Country Reports how, after having introduced a myriad of information into the black box of methodology, as if by magic, a credit qualification is produced. Many of these reports seem to me like the pronouncements of film critics. It would seem that, more often than not, the individual evaluator is determining more how much he likes the ways or forms the Directors of a nation try to honor its obligations than on producing an honest and profound financial analysis of the country’s capacity for servicing its debt correctly.

In his book The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Random House, 2001), Lawrence Lessig maintains that an era is identified not so much by what is debated, but by what is actually accepted as true and so is not debated at all. In this sense, given the risk that the perceived country risk actually becomes the real country risk, it is best not to assign an AAA rating blithely to the risk qualifiers—perhaps not even a two-thumbs-up.

From The Daily Journal, Caracas, September 27, 2002

Spanish version, El Universal, Caracas September 26,2002

Guacara is not Basel

The credit portfolio of the Venezuelan banks, which in 1982 amounted to 16,000 million dollars, by June 2002, in constant 1982 dollars, barely reached 3,300 million dollars, that is, 21% of that of 1982. Being the case that levels as low as these have not been seen since the end of 1996.

In an article that I published in June 1997, I warned about the danger that, faced with the panic of falling into another banking crisis, we would exaggerate banking regulations, forgetting the main function of banking, which should be none other than be an active agent in the economic development of the country and for which the license is granted.

Since then, I have argued in multiple articles that we have to take care of the Basel banking regulations, which as part of the globalization process, seek to be imposed throughout the world, since these, although they may be logical for a developed country, , which perhaps only seeks to take care of its money, may be too strict for a developing country like ours.

You will then understand the reason for my anguish, when in a full-page interview published in a national newspaper, the new superintendent of banks did not mention a word about how banking can promote economic growth and limited himself to testifying about restrictive aspects of the regulation, with phrases such as: “we are the strategic ally of the system to guarantee deposits…” and “I have set the objective of adapting the system's regulations to the fundamental principles of Basel.”

Given the deep economic crisis in which we find ourselves immersed, if I were superintendent, on the contrary, I would do nothing other than try to determine if the current regulations could, in some way, be unnecessarily slowing down the granting of credits and, if so, Thus, I would proceed to modify them... whatever Basel says.

In any case, it should be noted that the impact that one or another type of banking regulation may have on the health of the financial system will always be infinitely less than that on the real health of the economy in which banking operates.

If there is something worrying about globalization, it is that that category of dangerous public officials, who limited themselves to developing regulations from their air-conditioned offices in Caracas, ignoring the real world, continue doing the same today, but from even more remote offices... in Basel.

Translated from article published in TalCual, Caracas, August 14 2002