Why has IMF kept silence on what was done to banks in 1988?

What happened?

Before 1988, for about 600 years, bank exposures were a function of the by bankers ex-ante perceived risks (bpr), risk premiums (rp) meaning interest rates, and bankers’ risk tolerance (brt) 

Pre 1988 bank exposures =ƒ(bpr, rp, brt)

Bank credit was then allocated to what produced banks the highest expected risk adjusted interest rate return on equity

But 1988, with the Basel Accord, risk weighted capital requirements were introduced. With that bank exposures became a function of the: by bankers ex-ante perceived risks (bpr), risk premiums (rp), bankers’ risk tolerance (brt), and regulatory capital requirements (rcc), this last itself a function of the by regulators ex-ante perceived (or decreed) risks (rpr) and the regulator’s risk tolerance (rrt)

After 1988 bank exposures = ƒ(bpr, rp, brt, rccƒ(rpr, rrt))

Bank credit was thereafter allocated to what produced banks the highest expected risk and capital-requirement adjusted return on equity

And of course banking changed dramatically, and the allocation of bank credit to the real economy became hugely distorted.

With Basel II of 2004, which introduced risk weighting within the private sector, and made the process much dependent on credit ratings, the distortions and the systemic risks were dramatically increased.

Fundamental mistakes:

1. Although hard to believe, bank regulators never defined what the purpose of banks is before regulating these. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A Shedd, 1850-1926

2. Although hard to believe, as the purported reason was to make banks safer, the regulators never researched what had caused bank crisis in the past; namely unexpected events, criminal doings and what was ex ante perceived as very safe but that ex post turned out very risky. What is perceived as very risky is, precisely because of that perception, what is least dangerous to the system. “May God defend me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies” Voltaire

3. Any risk, even if perfectly perceived, causes the wrong actions if excessively considered; and here the regulators doubled down on ex ante perceived risks.

4. Ignoring risk-taking is the oxygen of development. For banks to take risks, albeit in smaller amounts on “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs, is absolutely vital for the economy to move forward, in order not to stall and fall. Where would we be had these regulations been in place during the previous 600 years? In April 2003 as an Executive Director of the World Bank I stated: “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.” In fact the risk of excessive risk aversion was the theme of my first ever Op-Ed. 

5. Little understanding of systemic risks: In January 2003 I wrote in 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. Friends, as it is, the world is tough enough.”

6. Little understanding of fragility: In April 2003, as an ED of the World Bank I stated: “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.”

7. Little understanding of pro-cyclicality: When times are good, credit-risks seem low, so the risk-weighted capital requirements allow banks to expand more than they should; and when times are bad, the credit risk are naturally perceived higher, and so the capital requirements force banks to contract credit, precisely when less bank credit austerity is needed.

8. Macro-imprudence: Prudential regulation helps failed banks to fail expediently. Macro-imprudent regulation impedes failed banks from failing… which builds uphuge mountains of combustible materials waiting for a Big Bang.

9. Overreliance on data and models: In October 2004 in a formal statement at the World Bank I warned: “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 very short series of statistical evidence and very doubtful volatility assumptions.”

Consequences:

Statism: Basel Accord’s risk weights of 0% for “The (infallible) Sovereign” and 100% for “We the (risky) People” introduced runaway statism. Since then the proxies for risk-free rates have been subsidized. We have no idea what the current low interest rates on much sovereign debt would be if government bureaucracy bank borrowings were affected by a risk-weight similar to SMEs’. De facto those risk-weights imply that regulators believe public bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit, than the private sector.

Crisis resulting from dangerous overpopulation of “safe” havens: The first crisis, that of 2008, resulted from excessive exposures to AAA rated securities (Basel II risk weight 20% = allowed leverage 62 to 1), sovereigns like Greece, and residential housing (Basel II risk weight 35% = allowed leverage 32 to 1)  

Stagnation: Banks have stopped financing the riskier future and basically keep to refinancing the safer past and present. As an example banks finance much more “safe” basements where jobless kids can stay with their parents, than the SMEs that could create the jobs that could allow the kids afford to also become parents. In short this regulation keeps Keynes' animal spirits caged.

Stimulus waste: Since credit will not flow were they could most be needed, much of the stimuli fiscal deficits, quantitative easing and low interest could produce, is wasted.

More inequality: The result of making it harder and more expensive for the “risky” weaker to access opportunities of bank credit for productive purposes.

Too Big Too Fail: Clearly minimalistic capital requirements, for so many assets, has served as a potent growth hormone for the TBTF banks.

Over indebtedness: By allowing ridiculously low capital requirements for assets perceived as safe, the regulators allowed banks to leverage too much their equity and the support they received from society (taxpayers). That facilitated the current generation to extract more borrowing capacity to sustain its own consumption than any other previous generation. That has left little borrowing capacity over for the future generations.

What to do?

To accept the problem exists!

To know neither Hollywood nor Bollywood, would allow new movies on the same theme to be produced by directors and scriptwriters responsible for such box-office flops as Basel I-II-III.

To understand that bank capital requirements would be better if based on ex-post risks of models based on ex-ante risk perceptions.

To know that if you absolutely must distort, it is better to do so based on some useful social purpose, like based on job-creation and environmental-sustainability ratings.

To understand that getting our banks and our economies out of the Basel mess is a very delicate process, which does not permit an ounce more of that technocrats’ hubris that caused it all.

IMF, will you keep on being silent on this?

Per Kurowski

PS. Here is an updated list of the many mistakes with risk weighing.

Banking before and after 1988

For about 600 years, before 1988, the exposures of banks to assets were a function of the by bankers ex-ante perceived risks (bpr), the risk premiums (rp), and bankers’ risk tolerance (brt) 

Pre 1988 Bank exposures = f (bpr, rp, brt)

Bank capital (equity) followed the rule of "One for all and all for one".

After 1998, Basel Accord, soon 30 years, with the introduction of the risk weighed capital requirements, the exposures of banks to assets are a function of the by bankers ex-ante perceived risks (bpr), the risk premiums (rp), bankers’ risk tolerance (brt), and regulatory capital requirements (rcc), this last itself a function of the by regulators ex-ante perceived (or decreed) risks (rpr) and the regulators' risk tolerance (rrt)

After 1988 Bank exposures = f (bpr, rp, brt, rcc=f (rpr, rrt))

Anyone thinking banking remained the same after 1988 is either naïve or dumb.

Anyone thinking the allocation of bank credit to the real economy was not distorted by this, is dumb.

Anyone thinking that distorting bank credit to the real economy is not something very risky, is either ignorant or a populist technocrat suffering from excessive hubris.

Anyone thinking that distorting bank exposures this way make banks safer, is an ignoramus who has no idea about what bank crises are made of: namely unexpected events, criminal doings and what was ex ante perceived as very safe but that ex post turned out very risky.

Anyone thinking this does not promote inequality has no idea of what the opportunity to bank credit does to fight it 

PS. With respect to the perceived risks, both the bankers’ and the regulators, let me remind you that any risk, even if perfectly perceived, causes the wrong actions if excessively considered; something here done by design.

Since bank regulators in 1988 decreed sovereign debt to be risk free, the market has not set the risk-free rates

In the discussion by Lawrence Summers and Adair Turner on secular stagnation in the Institute of New Economic Thinking INET, on October 28, I extract the following:

15:25 Lord Adair Turner

“The longer we have the slow growth and sub-target inflation, the more you have to think that there is something secular is at work. And the thing that makes me pretty sure that Larry is right in his hypothesis that something secular is at work, is to look at the 30, not the 10 year trend, but the 30 year trend, in real risk-free interest rates. 

Take UK’s 10 year yields on real index linked gilts. 

Take an average for each five year period, from 86-90, 91 to 95 and so six of those 5 year periods until the last

And the sequence is 3.8%; 3.6; 2.5%; 1.9%; 1.2%; minus 0.6%, and the value is now minus 1.5%. 

When you see a trend like that you begin to think that there may be something secular, petty strong, about that; with a dramatic fall even before the 2008 crisis, so you can’t put all this down to central bank intervention, quantitative easing.

So we seem to have entered a world where savings and investments only balance at very low or negative real interest rates. And of course those very low interests rates themselves, played a role in stimulating the excessive private credit growth which landed us with the debt overhang. 

But despite this those low interest we have low growth and below target inflation, and so it is vital we try work why is this… 

17:58 Well logically, the long term decline in real interest rates must mean that we have faced over the last 30 year either:

an increase in the ex ante desired aggregate global saving rate 

or a decline in the ex ante desired or intended global investment rate 

or a mix of both.”

Lord Adair Turner, the former chairman of the Financial Service Authority, FSA (2008-2013), and therefore supposedly a technocrat well versed in bank regulations, had not a word to say about: 

That extraordinary moment when, after about 600 years of “one for all and all for one” capital in banking, in 1988, with the Basel Accord, Basel I, regulators introduced risk weighted capital requirements for banks and, to that purpose, set the risk weight for the sovereign at 0%, while the risk weight for We the People was set at 100%.

That of course signified an extraordinary regulatory subsidy of sovereign debt, that had to set the UK’s 10 year yields on real index linked gilts, on a negative path.

From that moment on, since the regulators had decreed sovereign debt to be risk free, we can no longer really hold the market, using public debt as a proxy, can provide a reliable risk free rate estimate.

For now those artificially decreed risk-free rates can only go down and down and down… until BOOM!

The low “real” public debt interests might be the highest real rates ever, in that these regulations also make banks finance less the riskier, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, those who could provide us with our future incomes, and therefore governments with its future tax revenues.

With risk weighted capital requirements, Basel Committee’s regulators fed the banking system brutish misinformation

If you have $100.000 to invest you might invest more and at a lower interest rate in what you perceive as safe, as compared to how you would invest in what you perceive as risky. But, even so, you would never ever think of your $1 invested in what you perceive as safe, to be any different than the $1 you have invested in what you perceive as risky. 

That is not the current case with banks. With the risk weighed capital requirements for banks, they have been told that $1 invested in what is perceived as safe, is worth much more than $1 invested in what’s is perceived as risky. That because regulators allow banks to leverage the former $1 much more than the latter; which means that $1 invested in what is ex ante perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, produce the banks a much higher expected risk-adjusted return on equity, than $1 invested in what is ex ante perceived or decreed as risky.

For instance Basel II, with its 8% basic capital requirement set a 20% risk weight for AAA rated private assets and 100% risk weights for unrated SMEs. That allow banks to leverage their equity, and the support they received from society 62.5 times with AAA rated assets and only 12.5 to 1 with loans to SMEs. That resulted into that for a bank to lend to a SME, as compared to lending to an AAA rated borrower, carried the cost of 50 times lesser leverage opportunities.

That signified that banks, in order to keep shareholders happy with high risk adjusted returns, and management bonuses high, had to keep to what was perceived as safe and abandon lending to what was perceived as risky.

So banks no longer finance the “riskier” future, they only refinance the “safer” past.

So banks are dangerously overpopulating safe havens and, for the real economy, dangerously underexploring riskier bays.

So banks are gladly financing those “safe” basements where jobless kids can live with their parents, and not those “risky” SMEs that stand a chance to create the jobs that could allow the kids to afford to become parents too. 

Damn those regulators who manipulated and still are manipulating the allocation of bank credit this way. They should be shamed and banned forever.

P.S. Washington Post. December 2018: “Affordable homes or houses as investment/retirement assets?”

The almost 600 year long history of banks changed dramatically, for the worse, in 1988, with the Basel Accord.

If we use the Medici Bank as the first bank, it was established in 1397. From there on, until 1988, a bank’s capital (equity) followed the simple “one for all and all for one” principle. 

Then with the Basel Accord, Basel I, the regulators introduced risk weighted capital requirements for the banks. More ex ante perceived risk more capital – less risk less capital. That had serious and non-transparent consequences for the borrowers, for the economy, for bank stability and for the balance between the government and We the People.

It promoted inequality among the borrowers:

The ex ante perceived “risky” borrowers, those who precisely because of those perceptions, already got less credit and had to pay higher interest rates, now also had to face the costs of generating higher capital requirements for banks; while the ex ante perceived “sage” borrowers, those who precisely because of those perceptions, already got more credit and had to pay lower interest rates, now also received the subsidy of generating lower capital requirements for banks.

It stopped the economy to move forward, so it stalls and falls

Banks, because of the higher leverage allowed with assets perceived as safe, obtained higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when financing, the “safe” than when financing the “risky”, like SMEs. The new regulations stopped banks from financing the riskier future and mostly dedicate themselves to refinance the safer past and present. They now finance safe basements where jobless kids can live with parents, but not the SMEs that could get the kids jobs.

It destabilized the bank system.

By assigning ultra low capital requirements for what was perceived as safe it caused the dangerous overpopulation of “safe havens”, like the AAA rated securities built-up with lousy mortgages to the subprime sector… and against very little capital.

It brought in statism thru the bathroom window.

Risk weights of 0% for the Sovereign and 100% for We the People, expresses unabridged statism in that it, de facto, implies regulators think government bureaucrats are able to use bank credit better than SMEs and entrepreneurs.

Just try to imagine what the Médicis would have said about assigning a 0% risk weight to the Sovereign?

PS. “Assets for which bank capital/equity requirements were nonexistent, were what had the most political support; sovereign credits. A ‘leverage ratio’ discouraged holdings of low-return government securities” Paul Volcker

PS. Here's a more extensive aide memoire on some of the monstrosities of such regulations

Regulators make banks finance “safe” basements where young can live with their parents, not the risky jobs they need.

Ever since regulators introduced credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks, these are not financing sufficiently the "riskier" future, only refinancing excessively the "safer" past and present.

For instance, the risk weight of 35% when financing “safe” houses, and of 100% when financing “risky” SMEs, results only in the building of basements where the young can live with their parents, and not in the creation of the new generation of jobs the young need.

Here's an aide memoire on the monstrous mistakes of such capital requirements.

P.S. Washington Post. December 2018: “Affordable homes or houses as investment/retirement assets?”

Why I distrust governments so much, and about which the World Bank and IMF could do a lot.

Sir, as a Venezuelan, I of course distrust completely any government that thinks it can manage, on behalf of its people, 97% of the country’s exports, better than what each citizen could manage his per capita share of the net revenues from those exports. 

But the following comment has to do with a completely different issue and that applies to many more countries than my own, namely: I entirely distrust governments that can allow bank regulators to do what they have done... Here's a short summary of it:

Without defining the purpose of the banks, in a way with which governments and We the People could agree on, the regulators decided that the only role of banks was not to fail. To be a safe mattress in which you could stash away cash. For instance, how they allocated credit to the real economy, did not matter. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A Shedd, 1850-1926

Then in order to keep banks from failing, without absolutely no empirical research on what makes banks and bank systems fail, they proceeded to impose credit risk weighted capital requirements on banks. More ex ante perceived risk more capital – less risk less capital.

Sheer lunacy! This seriously distorted the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, overpopulating “safe” havens like AAA rated securities and sovereigns like Greece, and for the real economy dangerously underexploring risky but perhaps productive bays, like SMEs.

These regulations, since implemented, have certainly hindered millions of SMEs and entreprenuers to have access to credit who otherwise would have been awarded by banks. No wonder QEs, fiscal deficits and low interests, fail to stimulate the economy.  Now banks finance “safe” basements where jobless kids can live with their parents, but not the risky SMEs, those that could create the jobs that could allow the kids to also become parents themselves.

And all for no good stability purpose at all. Just an example, the risk-weight for the dangerous AAA to AA rated corporate was set to 20%, while that for the absolutely innocuous below BB- rated was determined to be 150%. Motorcycles are clearly riskier than cars, which is why, having the choice of transport, so many more people die in car accidents. “May God defend me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies” Voltaire.

To top it up with these regulations the bank regulators helped to decree inequality

So World Bank and IMF, could I at least trust you to take up this with all finance ministers present during the meetings in October 2016? I have asked it of you many times before, but until now, nothing, zilch, nada.

PS. Here is a link to a somewhat expanded description of the horrors of the Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

Per Kurowski

@PerKurowski

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

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com

Greenspan never understood the distortions in credit allocation the risk weighted capital requirements for banks caused

Fed chairman Alan Greenspan in January 2004 said: “There are several developments, however, that I find worrisome…The first is that yield spreads continue to fall. As yield spreads fall, we are in effect getting an incremental increase in risk-taking that is adding strength to the economic expansion. And when we get down to the rate levels at which everybody is reaching for yield, at some point the process stops and untoward things happen. The trouble is, we don’t know what will happen except that at these low rate levels there is a clear potential for huge declines in the prices of debt obligations such as Baa-rated or junk bonds.”

This is clear evidence Greenspan did not understand much of the distortions produced by the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

The reality was that as “yield spreads continue to fall” banks reached out for those yields with which they could most leverage their equity with; not “Baa-rated or junk bonds” but AAA rated securities.

Bonds perceived ex ante as junk never ever signify a danger to the bank systems

Here is an aide mémoire

Willful (or naive) blindness of epical proportions, reigns in the world of the Basel Committe’s bank regulations

Note: The following comments have been inspired by beginning to read Margaret Hefferman’s “Willful Blindness”

To agree with bank regulations for which the regulators have not even defined the purpose of the banks they regulate… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

To agree with bank regulations that look to hinder banks to hold assets ex ante perceived as risky, when these kinds of assets have never created a bank crisis… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

To agree with bank regulations based on perceived credit risks, when obviously what matter are unexpected events or not perceived credit risks… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

To believe that you could place so much decision power into the hands of some few human fallibe credit rating agencies, without intriducing a systemic risk of gigantic proportions… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

Not seeing that allowing banks to leverage their equity, and the support they receive from society differently, with different assets, will produce a serious distortion in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

Not seeing that curtailing the access to bank credit of the risky, more than it is already curtailed increases inequality… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

Not seeing that future generations will be affected by denying them the risk-taking that brought current generation to where its at… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

Not understanding that banks, if allowed to use their own risk models to set their capital requirements will lower these so as to maximize their expected risk adjusted returns on equity… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

Believing that some Basel I and II regulators who were totally surprised by the 2007/08 crisis have it in them to fix it with a Basel III… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

To believe that a 2007/08 crisis and the following stagnation can be cured by just throwing QEs, fiscal deficits and low interest rates at it… is that not an act of willful (or naive) blindness?

And the list of questions related to current bank regulations that gives ground to believing willful acts of blindness takes place goes on and on and on… and I might add some with time after finishing the book that inspired this. 

PS to Financial Times: To receive thousands of letters on these problems from someone that has been showned right on many letters previously published… is that not an act of willful (not naive) blindness?

12 years after Basel II, ECB sees faults in risk weighted capital requirements for banks, but still doesn’t get it

ECB has published a document titled “The limits of model-based regulation” ECB Working Paper 1928, July 2016. In it the authors find that risk-weighted capital requirements based on sophisticated models applied by big banks, are basically dangerous and worthless.

Of course that regulation is worthless, it does not serve any useful purpose, and only increases the probabilities of financial instability.

But from its “Non-technical summary” it is harrowing to see that they still do not fully understand why these risk weighted capital requirements are dangerous; not only for the big banks with their models, but also for the smaller that apply the standard approach risk weights declared by the Basel Committee; and also, primarily, for the real economy.

For a starter it declares: “In recent decades, policy makers around the world have concentrated their efforts on designing a regulatory framework that increases the safety of individual institutions as well as the stability of the financial system as a whole.”

And so the first observation is: Who gave policy makers the right to concentrate on designing a regulatory framework that completely ignores whether the allocation of bank credit to the real economy is efficient or not? Is the real economy to serve banks or are the banks to serve the real economy? “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A Shedd, 1850-1926 

Then it states: “an important innovation has been the introduction of complex, model-based capital regulation that was meant to promote the adoption of stronger risk management practices by financial intermediaries, and ultimately to increase the stability of the banking system”... “banks that opted for the introduction of the model-based approach experienced a reduction in capital charges and consequently increased their lending by about 9 percent relative to banks that remained under the traditional [standard risk weights] approach”... “Back-of-the-envelope calculations (abstracting from risk-based pricing of the cost of capital) suggest that underreporting of PDs allowed banks to increase their return on equity by up to 16.7 percent”

How come regulators believed the adoption of “stronger risk management practices by financial intermediaries” would trump the maximization by banks of their risk-adjusted returns on equity? This is like given children a book with indication of calories and expecting them to stay away from the chocolate cake. Worse, in the case of the big banks applying their internal models, it was like allowing the children to calculate on their own the calories of the chocolate cake they desire. How mind-boggling naive are regulators allowed to be?

From the conclusion “Certainly, one would expect less of a downward bias in risk estimates if model outputs were generated by the regulator and not the banks themselves” one could believe the authors favor the standard approach risk weighting. 

Of course that is better than the sophisticated modelling by the big banks, which only guarantees Too Big To Fail Banks. But the all the principal faulty characteristics of the whole risk weighting process remain intact even then... and are still ignored:

Like why basing capital on ex ante perceived credit risks, when all major bank crises have resulted either from unexpected events or excessive exposures to what was ex ante perceived as safe?

Like why if banks by the size of the exposures and interest rates already clear for perceived risk, should they also be cleared for in the capital? Do not regulators understand that any risk, even if perfectly perceived, leads to the wrong actions if excessively considered?

Earlier, on the same issue

And like so many other whys?

Luckily credit rating agencies got it wrong and put a temporary stop on it. Otherwise we would have been much worse off

Few can really evidence having warned so much against the use of credit rating agencies in bank regulations, as I can. So I believe that should give me the right to dare to opine that the fact that the credit rating agencies got it wrong, was and is not the worst part of the current bank regulation horror story.

As for examples of the first, in January 2003 the Financial Times published a letter in which I wrote: “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.”

And, as an Executive Director of the World Bank, in April 2003, at its Board I formally stated: “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 tips of the icebergs.”

And of course, when then the credit rating agencies later messed it up, and got it so amazingly wrong with the AAA rated securities backed with truly lousy mortgages to the subprime sector, it was a real disaster. But, I tell you, it could have been much worse, like if they had rated correctly for a much longer period.

The reason for that lies in the malignant error of the Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements for banks; more ex ante perceived credit risk more capital – less risk less capital.

Perceived credit risk is the risk most cleared for by banks; they do so by means of interest rate risk premiums and size of exposures. And so when regulators decided to clear for exactly the same risk, now in the capital, that perceived credit risk got to be excessively considered. And any risk, no matter how correctly it is perceived, if it is excessively considered, will cause the wrong actions.

For instance banks were (and are) allowed to leverage much more when financing the purchase of residential houses, or when investing in AAA rated securities backed with mortgages, “The Safe”, than what they are allowed to leverage when lending to the core of the bank credit needing part of the economy, the SMEs and entrepreneurs, those who help create the new generation of jobs, “The Risky”.

And that has resulted in that banks earn much higher expected risk adjusted returns on The Safe than on The Risky; which results banks will finance much more The Safe than The Risky.

So, had it gone on (oops it still goes on) we will all end up in houses with no more houses to be built, and without that new generation of jobs that could help us, or foremost our children and grandchildren, to service mortgages and pay utilities.

So let’s be thankful the credit rating agencies got it wrong, but, please, let us also correct for the regulators' mistakes. Thinking on my grandchildren, I would in fact prefer lower capital requirements for banks when financing unrated SMEs and entrepreneurs than when financing the purchase of a house.

But how did this happen and how could it have been avoided.

Well perhaps it would have been nice if the regulators, before regulating the banks ,had defined their purpose. Then perhaps John A. Sheed’s “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for”, could have come to their mind.

And also it would have been nice if the regulators had done some empirical research on what causes bank crisis; and then they would have discovered that never ever excessive exposures to what is perceived as risky; and then they might have thought of Voltaire’s “May God defend me from my friends [AAA rated]: I can defend myself from my enemies [the unrated]”

If ever allowed, the following would be my brief testimony about what caused the 2008 bank crisis

The following, if I am ever allowed to give it, as so many would not like to hear it, would be my brief testimony on what caused the 2008 bank crisis 

Sir, as I have learned to understand it, the 2008 crisis resulted from a combination of 3 factors.

The first were some very minimal capital requirements for some assets that had been approved, starting in 1988 with Basel I, for sovereigns and the financing of residential housing; and made extensive in Basel II of 2004 to private sectors assets with good credit ratings.

These allowed banks then to earn much higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity on some assets than on other, which introduced a serious distortion. After Basel II the allowed bank equity leverages were almost limitless when lending to “sound” (or friendly) sovereigns; 36 times to 1 when financing residential housing; and over 60 to 1 with private sector assets rated AAA to AA. Just the signature, on some type of guarantee by an AAA rated, like AIG, also allowed an operation to become leveraged over 60 times to 1. 

The second was Basel II’ extensive conditioning of the capital requirements for banks to the decisions of some very few (3) human fallible credit rating agencies. As I so many times warned about (in a letter published in FT January 2003 and even clearer in a written statement at the World Bank) this introduced a very serious systemic risk.

The third factor is a malignant element present in the otherwise beneficial process of securitization. The profits of that process are a function of how much implied and perceived risk-reduction takes place. To securitize something safe to something safer does not yield great returns for the securitization process. Neither does to securitize something risky into something less risky. 

What produces BIG profits is to securitize something really risky, and sell it off as something really safe. Like awarding really lousy subprime mortgages and packaging them in securities that could achieve an AAA rating. A 11%, 30 years, $300.000 mortgage, packaged into a security rated AAA and sold at a 6 percent yield, can be sold for $510.000, and provide those involved in the process an instantaneous profit of $210.000

With those facts it should be easy to understand the explosiveness of mixing the temptations of limitless, 36, and more than 60 to 1 allowed bank equity leverages providing huge expected risk adjusted ROEs; with subjecting the risk-assesment too much to the criteria of too few; with the huge profit margins when securitizing something very risky into something “very safe”. Here follows some indicative consequences:

As far as I have been able to gather, over a period of about 2 years, over a trillion dollars of the much larger production of subprime mortgages dressed up in AAA-AA ratings, ended up only in Europe. Add to that all the American investment banks’ holdings of this shady product.

To that we should also add Europe’s own problems with mortgages, like those in Spain derived in much by an excessive use of “teaser interest rates”, low the first years and then shooting up with vengeance.

And sovereigns like Greece, would never have been able to take on so much debt if banks (especially those in the Eurozone) would not have been able to leverage their equity so much with these loans.

Without those consequences there would have been no 2008 crisis, and that is an absolute fact.

The problem though with this explanation is that many, especially bank regulators, especially bank bashers, especially equity minimizing bankers, especially inattentive finance academicians, especially faulty besserwissers (those who love the sophisticated taste of words like "derivatives"), they all do not like this explanation, so it is not even discussed.

The real question though is: Who is the guiltiest party, those who fell for the temptations, or those who allowed the creation of the temptations?

I mean how far can you go blaming the children from eating some of that deliciously looking chocolate cake you left on the table, at their reach?

PS. Please do not categorize misregulation as deregulation. 

PS. A 2008 GFC tweet summary:
The pushers: Those harvesting mortgages in subprime fields; packaging these in MBS and getting rating agencies’ enthusiastic thumbs up.
The addicts: The banks
The drug, the hallucinogen: The Basel Committee's ultra-low bank capital requirements. 

PS. Here's a letter published by the Washington Post, December 2009

P.S. Here’s a 2010 YouTube explanation

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

PS. And here is my letter to the Financial Stability Board that was officially received. Will it be answered?

Here follows my linked four tweets to bank regulators

The ex post risk of Basel Committee’s bank capital requirements, based on models based on ex ante risk perceptions, is huge!

All these capital requirements do is to seriously distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, for no good purpose at all.

Bank capital requirements should be based on ex post risks that considers the risks of models based on ex ante risks perceptions.

Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, Stefan Ingves, Janet Yellen, Martin Gruenberg...  Capisci?

Here is conclusive evidence of that current bank regulation experts, dangerously, do not know what they are doing

The risk-weight the regulators assigned in Basel II to those corporates (private sector) rated AAA to AA was 20%; and to those rated below BB- one of 150%

That might have been a correct reflection of the ex ante risks of the AAA to AAA and the below BB- rated failing but, it is definitely not the risk for banks conditioned on the bankers having seen and acted upon those perceived risks.

That is: what are the real risks considering the risks that are perceived?

That is: motorcycles are very risky, that’s why so many more people die in accidents of the safer cars.

That is: clearly the below BB- rated do not pose danger for the banking system while the AAA to AA rated to which banks could build up excessive exposures definitely do.

In other words the bank regulators assumed bankers did not perceive credit risks at all, that bankers were totally blind, and so that they, the regulators, had to shoulder that whole responsibility.

That completely distorted the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, something that represents huge dangers for the banking system and for the health of the rest of the real economy.

This amazing incompetence of the regulators, mostly of the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board, has remained unquestioned by most experts. Could that be because they are all suffering from an excessive confidence in fellow experts, or could it be because of what John Kenneth Galbraith once said: “If one is pretending to knowledge one does not have, one cannot ask for explanations to support possible objections.”?

You tell me!

PS. Here a more extensive aide mémoire on the horrors of current risk weighted capital requirements for banks

When and where did the last bank crisis resulting from excessive exposures to something ex ante believed risky occur?

I don't know. Ask the regulators in the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the Financial Stability Board. 

I mean they must have much data on this because, without it, why would they impose credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks, knowing that carried the huge cost of distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy?

I mean that if they use the theorem that what's perceived as risky is riskier to the bank system than what is perceived as safe, then they are indeed using a loony theorem.

Or did they not look for the data?  Or did they not understand it?

Dumb G20 ministers reiterated in Hangzhou their support of the inept Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS)

We read in the “G20 Leaders’ Communique Hangzhou Summit”

“We reiterate our support for the work by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) to finalize the Basel III framework by the end of 2016, without further significantly increasing overall capital requirements across the banking sector, while promoting a level playing field”

Clearly the Ministers did not dare to ask the regulators some minimum minimorum questions like:

What do you believe is the purpose of banks? Should it not have something to do with what like John A Shedd opined: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for” 

If the purpose of the banks includes that of allocating credit efficiently to the real economy, why then do you distort that with risk weighted capital requirements for banks?

Can you indicate us one single bank crisis derived from excessive exposures to what was perceived as risky when incorporated to the balance sheets of banks? Voltaire said “May God defend me from my friends. I can defend myself from my enemies”. 

So, could that lack of questioning by the ministers be explained by John Kenneth Galbraith’s “If one is pretending to knowledge one does not have, one cannot ask for explanations to support possible objections”?

Frankly, neither Hollywood nor Bollywood, would insist in supporting the work of someone producing such Basel I-II flop, as the 2007/08 crisis and the thereafter continued stagnation evidences.

PS. Here is a short aide memoire on some of the monstrous regulatory mistakes

The Basel Committee imagined a theorem that allowed it to intervene in the allocation of bank credit

In Deirdre Nansen McCloskey’s “Bourgeois Equality” we read:

“Economists collect Nobel Prizes for imagining in existence theorems of this or that ‘market failure’, which they never show are important enough to justify utopian schemes of state intervention” 

Precisely what I argue is also the case when: 

Regulators imagined that what was perceived ex ante as risky, was risky for banks. 

With this theorem they justified imposing risk weighted capital requirements for banks; more perceived risk more capital – less risk less capital. 

Or, with this theorem they gave in to the banks’ wishes of being able to leverage their capital much more; like if the asset had an AAA to AA rating, a mindboggling 62.5 times to 1 

They did so without even trying in the least to ascertain if that theorem was true; something which it is definitely not. 

What are risky for the bank system are unexpected events; and that which precisely because it is perceived as safe, could,generate dangerous excessive financial exposures. 

That regulation distorted completely the allocation of bank credit to the real market; but perhaps that was what some statist regulators wanted, since the risk weights they assigned to We the People was 100%, while that of the Sovereign was set at 0%.

PS. Here an aide memoire on some of that regulatory monstrosity

The Basel Committee injected cowardice into our bank system and doomed us all to doom and gloom.

In 1988 with the Basel Accord, Basel I, and then in 2004, with Basel II, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision introduced risk-weighted capital requirements for banks. More perceived risk more capital – less risk less capital.

That allowed banks to leverage their equity more with what was perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, than with what was risky. That allowed banks to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to The Safe, the government, housing and the AAArisktocracy than when lending to The Risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs.

Just look at these risk weights: Sovereign = 0%, AAArisktocracy = 20% and We the People = 100%

That effectively injected cowardice into the banking system, which prevents it from allocating credit efficiently to the real economy.

There is no chance in hell capitalism can function and deliver anything good with such regulations… the regulators doomed us all to doom and gloom.

And all for nothing! There has never been a major banking crisis that has resulted from excessive financial exposures assets perceived as risky when incorporated to banks’ balance sheets. These always result from unexpected events or from excessive exposures to something erroneously perceived as safe.

And the saddest part is that this regulatory distortion is not even acknowledged, much less discussed.

Six easy questions that bank regulators should answer

Here some questions that need to be asked urgently at the Financial Services Committee 

What do you believe is the purpose of banks? Should it not have something to do with what like John A Shedd opined: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for” 

If it includes to allocate credit efficiently to the real economy, why then do you distort that with risk weighted capital requirements for banks?

Voltaire said “May God defend me from my friends. I can defend myself from my enemies”. And so why do you base your capital requirements on what the bank perceives and not on what it has less chance to perceive?

Why do you give the AAA–AA rated a risk weight of 20% and the below BB- rated one of 150%? Do you really believe bankers could create excessive dangerous exposures to what ex ante was perceived as below BB-rated?

Why must the bank in my state hold more capital when lending to a local SME or entrepreneur, than when lending to, for instance, the German government?

By the way, is not the risk weights of Sovereign = 0% and We the People = 100%, an outrageous example of a runaway statism?

Why do you want to impose risk aversion in the Home of the Brave?

There are three causes for major bank crises. Regulators focused on one that’s not. Basel Committee & FSB... Good Job!

What are the causes of major bank crises?

1. Unexpected events, like major devaluations and natural disasters.

2. What was ex ante perceived as very safe turned out ex post to be very risky.

3. Shenanigans like unauthorized speculative trading or banks lending to their own directors or shareholders.

What did the regulators do? 

They introduced credit-risk-weighted capital requirements: more ex ante perceived risk more capital - less risk less capital... clearing agains for basically the only risk that was already being cleared for, by means of size of exposure and interest rates.

For instance, prime AAA to AA rated got 20% risk weight ,while the highly speculative almost broke below BB- rated, got a 150% risk weight...

As if banks would ever build up dangerous excessive exposures to what is below BB- rated 

Good job regulators!

PS. Here is more on that