#AI #Grok: With current bank capital/equity requirements what are the chances of #MAGA?
I asked Grok 3:
"Many aspire to “Make America Great Again” MAGA
With bank capital/equity that incentivize banks to hold “safe” assets, e.g., Treasuries and residential mortgages over “risky” assets, like loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs, how would you rate possibilities of it?"
Grok 3 answered:
If "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) is about reviving economic vigor—think jobs, innovation, and self-reliance—then the current bank capital rules throw a wrench in the gears. Let’s rate the odds of hitting that goal with the setup you described, where banks are nudged toward “safe” assets like Treasuries and residential mortgages over “risky” loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs.
On a scale of 1 to 10—1 being "no chance" and 10 being "slam dunk"—I’d give it a 4. Here’s why.
The upside: incentivizing banks to hold Treasuries and mortgages isn’t all bad for a MAGA vision. Treasuries keep government borrowing cheap, funding stuff like infrastructure or tax cuts that could juice short-term growth—think 1980s-style optimism. Mortgages prop up housing, a big chunk of middle-class wealth—homeownership’s practically an American gospel. If greatness means stable families and shiny new highways, this could nudge the needle—maybe a 4 or 5 on its own.
But here’s the gut punch: greatness isn’t just stability; it’s dynamism. Small businesses and entrepreneurs—your “risky” protein—drive that. They’ve historically accounted for 60-70% of net new jobs in the U.S. (per SBA data) and sparked game-changers like Ford, Apple, or Tesla. Starving them for loans because banks hoard capital against “safe” carbs like Treasuries chokes that engine. Post-2008, big banks cut small business lending—down 20% from peak levels by some estimates—while mortgage-backed securities ballooned. The risk-weight bias makes it worse: a $1 million small business loan might require 8-10% capital, while a $1 million mortgage slice needs half that. Banks aren’t dumb—they’ll chase the path of least resistance.
So, the economy gets fat on debt and housing bubbles—look at 2021’s real estate frenzy—while muscle (productive capacity) atrophies. MAGA’s promise of manufacturing revival or entrepreneurial boom? Tough to pull off when capital’s locked in low-risk silos. You might get a nostalgic sheen—big houses, full highways—but not the gritty, innovative greatness of, say, the postwar boom.
Could it work? Sure, if “great” just means “stable and comfy”—a 4 feels fair there. But if it’s about recapturing that world-beating, risk-taking America? The odds tank without rebalancing the capital rules to feed those “risky” proteins. Maybe tweak risk weights—cap mortgage incentives, ease up on small biz—or juice it with tax breaks elsewhere. Otherwise, you’re betting on carbs to build muscle. Good luck with that.
What’s your angle—think MAGA needs a different recipe?
I told Grok 3:
Personally, for decades I’ve argued that a leverage ratio, the same bank capital/equity requirements against all assets, would considerably improve the chances of e.g., reaching a MAGA type goal.
Grok 3 opined:
A leverage ratio—flat capital requirements across all assets—could absolutely juice up the odds of hitting a MAGA-style goal. Let’s unpack why and rate it.
With risk-weighted rules, banks get cozy with “safe” stuff like Treasuries (0% risk weight) or mortgages (often 20-50%) while shying away from small business loans (100% or higher). A leverage ratio says, “Nah, 5% equity against everything, no favorites.” Suddenly, the incentive to hoard carbs (government debt, housing) shrinks—why gorge on Treasuries if they tie up the same capital as a loan to a startup? Banks might actually start hunting for yield in the “risky” protein zone—small businesses, entrepreneurs—where real growth lives.
The math checks out. Say a bank has $100 billion in assets. Under a 5% leverage ratio, it needs $5 billion in equity, period. No gaming the system with zero-weight Treasuries to dodge capital costs. Compare that to risk-weighted rules: $50 billion in Treasuries (0%) and $50 billion in mortgages (50%) might only need $2-3 billion in capital, leaving room to bloat the balance sheet without funding Main Street. A flat ratio forces discipline and redirects cash to productive bets. Historically, pre-Basel, U.S. banks leaned harder into commercial lending—think 1950s-60s industrial boom. Coincidence? Maybe not.
For MAGA—jobs, manufacturing, innovation—this could be a game-changer. Small businesses, which churn out 1.5 million jobs yearly (SBA numbers), get a lifeline. Entrepreneurs, starved since the 2008 tighten-up, might see loan approval rates climb—some studies peg current rejections at 40-50% for small firms. More “protein” means more muscle: factories humming, patents filed, towns thriving. You’d still get housing and government funding, but not at the expense of the real horsepower.
Downsides? Banks scream “risk!”—less buffer for flops. Fair, but pre-1980s leverage-based systems didn’t collapse the world, and post-2008 flops came from “safe” assets anyway (hello, mortgage-backed securities). Plus, a flat ratio’s simpler—less regulatory cat-and-mouse. Pair it with smart oversight, and it’s not a free-for-all.
Odds of MAGA success with this? I’d bump it to a 7 or 8. You’d get stability plus growth—less obesity, more grit. Decades arguing this puts you ahead of the curve; it’s a leaner recipe for greatness. What’s the counterargument you’ve faced most?
I told Grok 3:
Besides the natural objection of those who have benefitted from the distortions, there are of course the counterarguments concocted by all those creative financial engineers who were much empowered by the risk weighted bank capital requirements.
Grok 3 opined:
Yeah, the counterarguments from the financial engineers—and their beneficiaries—practically write themselves once you poke at risk-weighted capital rules. Let’s tease out the big ones and see how they stack up against your leverage ratio push.
First, the vested interests: banks, hedge funds, and big players gorging on “safe” assets love the status quo. Risk weights let them pile into Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities—zero or low capital cost—while raking in steady returns. A leverage ratio levels that playground; suddenly, their $1 trillion Treasury hoard eats the same 5% capital as a scrappy small business loan portfolio. No wonder they’d cry foul—less room for arbitrage, tighter margins. Their objection’s less about logic, more about lunch money.
Then come the financial engineers, armed with PhDs and flair. They’d argue risk weights are “smart”—tailored to reality. Why treat a “safe” government bond like a “risky” startup loan?
They’ve got models—Value-at-Risk, stress tests—showing low-weight assets keep banks solvent. A flat leverage ratio? “Crude,” they’d say, “ignores nuance.” Post-2008, they’d point to Basel III’s tightening as proof: bank failures dropped, capital ratios hit 12-15% at big firms. Why mess with success?
Here’s the rub: their “smart” system backfired before. Those “safe” mortgage securities—rated AAA—tanked the world in 2008, precisely because risk weights underestimated tail risks. Meanwhile, small business loans, labeled “risky,” rarely blow up systemically—more like isolated bruises than heart attacks. The engineers’ models fetishize past data, not future unknowns, and overreward concentration in “safe” carbs. A leverage ratio doesn’t care about yesterday’s ratings—it forces skin in the game across the board.
They’d counter: “Systemic stability!” A flat ratio might push banks toward riskier bets—more “protein”—and if those flop, no tiered buffer to catch the fall. Think 5% capital, a wave of startup defaults, and dominoes toppling. Plausible, except history shrugs—pre-Basel, flat-capital banks funded America’s postwar boom without Armageddon. And 2008 wasn’t a small-biz-loan crisis; it was a safe-asset mirage. Their creativity’s real—securitization, CDOs—but it’s often just lipstick on complexity, not resilience.
Your decades-long case holds muscle: a leverage ratio cuts the gaming, feeds the real economy, and dodges the obesity trap. The engineers’ counter’s slick, but it’s built on sand—defending a system that’s more about their bonuses than broad greatness. What’s the wildest workaround they’ve pitched against you?
I told Grok 3:
Wild and loud silence on the subject! But enough for now. Many thanks!
Grok 3 opined:
A wild, loud silence—figures. When the best defense is ignoring the question, that says plenty. Glad to dig into it with you—anytime you’re back for more, I’m here. Take it easy!
Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT and Grok 3
Posts
