Friday, December 3, 2021
Sir, I refer to your opinion “Want to regulate ‘the algorithm’? It won’t be easy” Washington Post December 3, 2021, in which you discuss the thorny issue of how to regulate social media in general and Facebook in particular.
Regulators, like the Federal Reserve, de facto also use an algorithm, the risk weighted bank capital requirements. This one determines how much capital/equity banks need to hold and, by its incentive of allowing more or less leverage of bank capital, influences how credit is allocated to the economy.
Let me list a few of too many worrisome aspects of that algorithm:
That what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to bank systems than what’s perceived as safe
That bureaucrats know better what to do with taxpayer’s credit than e.g.., entrepreneurs with theirs.
That banks should refinance much more our “safer” present than finance our children’s and grandchildren’s’ “riskier” future.
That residential mortgages should be prioritized over small business loans.
How did we get there? My briefest answer: Groupthink by deskbound members of a mutual admiration club. Anyone who has walked on main-streets would e.g., understand that the real risks are conditioned to how risks are perceived, signifying assets can become very risky by the sole fact of being perceived very safe.
John A. Shedd, in “Salt from my attic” 1928 wrote: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for”. Sir, I submit that goes for banks too. Try to ask current regulators about the purpose of our banks.
PS. Rachel Siegel wrote on December 3 “Biden’s pledge to bring ‘new diversity’ to Federal Reserve to soon be tested” I just hope the true meaning of diversity is really understood.