Thursday, February 11, 2016
Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina) asked Fed chair Janet Yellen about the Fed's legal authority to implement negative rates… And seemingly it is a bit unclear.
But he should also have asked:
Is it really legal for the Fed to support bank regulations that require banks to hold more capital against loans to The Risky than against loans to The Safe?
I ask since that allows banks to leverage more their equity and the support we gve them when lending to The Safe than when lending to The Risky.
And that allows banks to earn higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to The Safe than when lending to The Risky
And therefore that favors the access to bank credit of those perceived as safe, and thereby discriminates against the fair access to bank credit of those perceived as risky.
Are not The Risky already discriminated enough by the sole fact they are perceived as risky and therefore receive less and more expensive credit?
Does not the real economy suffer when the allocation of bank credit is distorted this way?
Has this not introduce a regulatory risk aversion in The Home of the Brave?
And how does this make banks more stable? Are not the big bank crises always detonated by something perceived as very safe that later turn out very risky?