Wednesday, July 16, 2014
How much can Nobel Prize winners be allowed to ignore facts relevant to what they are discussing?
Facts:
1. The pillar of current bank regulations is the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks.
2. These because regulators cannot differentiate between ex ante and ex post risks, allow banks to leverage their shareholder´s capital much higher when lending to “the infallible” than when lending to “the risky”.
3. And that results in that banks can earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on their equity when lending to “the infallible” than when lending to the risky.
4. And that distorts and makes it impossible for medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups to have access to bank credit in fair market conditions.
5. And that makes it impossible for the liquidity or stimulus provided by quantitative easing (QEs), fiscal deficits or low interest rates, to reach what needs most to be reached.
6. And all that for no good reason at all since bank crises are never ever the result of excessive exposures to what is ex ante perceived as risky.
And so when time and time again I read that a Nobel Prize winner asks for more economic stimulus and less austerity, without the slightest reference to the need of removing that huge regulatory boulder that stands in the way of job creation and sturdy economic growth, I can´t help but to ask… is there a point at which a Nobel Prize must be recalled so as to avoid reputational damage?
Of course I do understand the difficulties for the Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. That prize was endowed by the Swedish central bank… and the current president of Sveriges Riksbank, Stefan Ingves, is also the current chairman of the Basel Committee, the committee responsible for creating the regulatory boulder that stands in our way... and that is a huge reputational risk in itself.
How dangerous it can be when reputational risks intertwine so much... in mutual admiration clubs.