What about some transparency on state aid given to the State?

Matthew Lesh discusses “level playing field”, “state aid”, domestic subsidies and transparency: “Relaxed subsidies rules are a free rein to pick winners without transparency” City AM, March 16, 2022.

In 1988, risk weighted bank capital requirements were introduced. Basel I, decreed weights of 0% the government, 40% residential mortgages and 100% citizens. Though modified by the introduction of more risk categories in 2004’s Basel II, the discrimination in the access to bank credit still remains.

That regulation translates into banks being allowed to leverage their capital, basically their equity, much more when lending to the State, than to the citizens. That means banks can much easily earn desired risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to the State than when lending to the citizens. That translates into a subsidy of government borrowings.

Don’t just take my word for it. Paul Volcker, in his 2018 autobiography “Keeping at it”, wrote: “Assets for which bank capital requirements were nonexistent, were what had most political support: sovereign credits. A simple ‘leverage ratio’ discouraged holdings of low-return government securities"

The scary truth is that we confront an utterly creative and non-transparent financial statism/communism of monstrous proportions, which impedes the markets to signal what the undistorted interest rate on governments debts should be. 

Are current ultra-low interest rates on government debt something weird? Of course not: a) require banks to hold the same capital against all assets (as it used to be); b) stop central banks from purchasing with their QE government debt; c) take away liquidity requirements that force banks to hold government debt; d) stop ordering pension funds and insurers to buy “safe” government debt irrespective of the price; and you would see government debt traded at much higher rates.

The difference between the interest rates governments would pay on their debts in absence of all above mentioned favors, and the current low interests is, de facto, a well camouflaged debt, retained before the holders of those debts could earn it.

All this empowers the Autocratic Bureaucracy.

Who has approved these subsidies that are not recognized much less measured? What if the owner of a small British businesses makes the case to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, that he believes an unfair subsidy to a competitor in the access to bank credit, has been provided by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)?

PS. 2012 Citi AM published an opinion of mine. It was much on the same theme

Bank regulators have placed the consequences of volatility on steroids

I refer to Robert Burgess’ “Volatility Is the Price of a Safer Banking System”

October 2004, at the World Bank, as an Executive Director, I stated: “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.”

Most of current bank capital requirements, whether Basel I, II or III are based on perceived credit risks. That means banks can leverage their capital/equity/skin-in-the-game the most with what’s perceived as safe. That means banks can build up those huge exposures to “safe assets” which can become extremely dangerous to bank system if volatility kicks in, and turn these supposed safe into very risky assets.

April 2003, at the World Bank I had also opined: "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"

The 2008 crisis was caused by assets rated AAA to AA, which after Basel II banks were allowed to leverage with a mind-boggling 62.5 times, suddenly were discovered as very risky assets… you want having increased the impact of volatility any higher?

May 2003, at a workshop for regulators, I argued: “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”. That translates into that the regulator should not try to hinder volatility, but learn to live with it. 

So, if we want a safer bank system, we must first get rid of the risk weighted bank capital requirements which have placed the consequences of volatility on steroids.

The main causes the so objectionable risk-weighted bank capital requirements are not objected.

A brief summary:

No understanding about what immense hubris “experts” are capable of, like believing they can weigh bank capital requirements for perceived credit risks… and then mostly ignoring misperceived risks and unexpected events e.g., pandemic war.

No understanding of how allowing banks to leverage their capital differently with different assets, will make it easier/harder for banks to obtain the desired risk adjusted returns on equity; something which distorts the allocation of credit.

No knowledge about conditional probabilities; which therefore helps to believe those excessive exposures that could become truly dangerous to bank systems, are built up with assets perceived as risky.

Not understanding that risk-taking is the oxygen of all development.

Consequentially:

No understanding of their pro-cyclicality. When risks are perceived low, credit ratings are high, banks can hold little capital, buy back stock, pay much dividends and bonuses, and so, when times worsen, or something unexpected like a pandemic or a war occurs, banks will stand there naked, precisely when it would be the hardest for them to raise new capital, precisely when we need them the most

No understanding of that since the capital requirements are lower for lending to the “safe” government than to the risky citizens, this implies bureaucrats/politicians know better what to do with (taxpayer’s) credit than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs. (Of course, they could also be agreeing with that for pure ideological considerations.)

No understanding of what capital requirements being lower for “safe” residential mortgages than for loans to risky small businesses and entrepreneurs, implies to the possibilities of generating the jobs/incomes needed to service mortgages and pay living costs.

The saddest part is that all these limitations seem to entirely apply to our current Academia. 

What if in the early 19th century The First Bank of the United States had regulated banks as the Federal Reserve began to do in 1988.

Sir, it is only now I read Steven Pearlstein reviewing Jonathan Levy’s “Age of American Capitalism”, “From commerce to chaos: An economic history of the United States”, Washington Post, June 4, 2021 

It says: “The ‘American system’ … required a new system of credit built around a government-chartered National Bank and government debt”.

That contrasts with John Kenneth Galbraith's: “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” “Money” (1975)

Why does not Washington Post invite some prominent financial historians to debate: Where would America be if “The First Bank of the United States” (1791-1811) had imposed bank capital requirements similar to those the Federal Reserve did in 1988? 

What the Fed did was succinctly explained by Paul Volcker in his 2018 autobiography in terms of: “The assets assigned the lowest risk, for which bank capital requirements were therefore low or nonexistent, were those that had the most political support: sovereign credits and home mortgages”. 

Would that not be an important debate that should have been started long ago? 

PS. That quote from Galbraith’s “Money” has a very personal meaning to me. It inspired my very first Op-Ed, 1997 in Caracas Venezuela. 

PS. Steve Pearlstein wrote: “Moral Capitalism: Why Fairness Won’t Make Us Poor”. Since current bank capital requirements, by doubling down on perceived credit risk unfairly decrees that the less creditworthy are also less worthy of credit, he could be interested in what Galbraith, opined in that same “Money”.

“The banks’ function of democratization of capital as they allow entities with initiative, ideas, and will to work although they initially lack the resources to participate in the region’s economic activity. In this second case, Galbraith states that 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.” 

Indeed, when it comes to access to bank credit, fairness, can only help to make us rich.