My letter to the Financial Stability Board was received.

http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/Per-Kurowski.pdf

From: Per Kurowski

Sent: 18 March 2019 19:16

To: Financial Stability Board (FSB)

Subject: SME financing evaluation

I have not found sufficient strength to sit down and formally write up my comments, because I feel I would just be like a heliocentric Galileo writing to a geocentric Inquisition.

The Basel Committee’s standardized risk weights are based on the presumption that what is ex ante perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank system.

And I hold a totally contrarian opinion. I believe that what is perceived a safe when placed on banks balance sheets to be much more dangerous to our bank system ex post than what is perceived ex ante as risky; and this especially so if those “safe” assets go hand in hand with lower capital requirements, meaning higher leverages, meaning higher risk adjusted returns on equity for what is perceived safe than for what is perceived as risky.

The following Basel II risk weights are signs of total lunacy or an absolute lack of understanding of the concept of conditional probabilities.

AAA to AA rated = 20%; allowed leverage 62.5 times to 1. Below BB- rated = 150%; allowed leverage 8.3 times to 1

The distortion the risk weighting creates in the allocation of credit to the real economy is mindboggling. Just consider the following tail risks.

The best, that which perceived as very risky turning out to be very safe. The worst, that which perceived as very safe turning out to be very risky.

And so the risk weighted capital requirements kills the best and puts the worst on steroids... dooming us to suffer an weakened economy as well as an especially severe bank crisis, resulting from especially large exposures, to what was especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

In relative terms all that results in much more and less (see note) expensive credit to for instance sovereigns and the purchase of houses, and less and more expensive credit to SMEs

I am neither a banker nor a regulator but I do believe that the following post helps to give some credibility to my opinions on the issue. And, as a grandfather, I am certainly a stakeholder.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2004/11/some-of-my-early-public-opinions- on.html

And here is a more detailed list of my objections to the risk weighting

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

Now if by any chance you would dare open your eyes to the mistakes of your risk weighted bank capital requirements and want more details from me, you know where to find me.

Sincerely

Per Kurowski

A former Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004) 

@PerKurowski

Note: In the original letter I erroneously wrote "more and more expensive credit to sovereigns" and not "less expensive", but this should be easily understood as a mistake.

PS. FSB keeps avoiding the issue: June 7, 2019 FSB published a Consultative Document: “Evaluation of the effects of financial regulatory reforms on small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) financing” I quote two parts of it.

1. “For the reforms that are within the scope of this evaluation, post-crisis financial regulatory reforms, the analysis, does not identify negative effects on SME financing in general.” 

Comment: The scope of the analysis does explicitly not include pre-crisis financial regulatory reform, like Basel II. When compared to what was introduced in Basel II, the changes in Basel III produced not really that much “more stringent risk-based capital requirements”. Therefore to limit the analysis to the impact of Basel III changes to risk-based capital requirements, is basically to avoid the issue of how these have, especially since Basel II, profoundly distorted the allocation of credit, and negatively affected the financing of SMEs.

2. “There is some evidence that the more stringent risk-based capital requirements under Basel III slowed the pace and in some jurisdictions tightened the conditions of SME lending at those banks that were least capitalised ex ante relative to other banks.”

Comment: That the Basel III risk-based changes, which in my opinion are minor relative to their importance, “tightened the conditions of SME lending at those banks that were least capitalised ex ante relative to other banks” is something to be expected. There, close to the roof, on the margin, is where the risk weighting most affects; think of “The drowning pool”

PS. A letter to the IMF: "The risk weights in the risk weighted bank capital requirements are to access to credit, what tariffs are to trade, only more pernicious.

PS. From what I see my comments were totally ignored

Had there been a Basel Committee on Tennis Supervision, Roger Federer would be history by now.

The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) in order to make bank systems safer imposed risk weighted bank capital requirements. The lower the perceived risk the lower the capital the higher the leverage allowed. The higher the perceived risk the more capital the lower leverage allowed. 

For example, in Basel II of June 2004 they held that against any private sector asset that was rated AAA to AA banks needed to hold 1.6% in capital, meaning they were allowed to leverage 62.5 times. Against any private sector asset that was rated below BB- banks needed to hold 12% in capital, meaning they were allowed to leverage 8.3 times. 

In terms of tennis that would mean that those players ranked the highest would be able to play with the best rackets, and be allowed many more serves than those player ranked lower. Someone not only unranked but also lousy player like me would be happy to have one serve and at least be allowed a to uses a ping-pong racket if playing against Roger Federer. 

But what would have happened if there had been a Basel Committee on Tennis Supervision that implemented these regulations?

To make a long story short, the best tennis players would have it easier and easier to win, and would have less and less need to practice. Those betting on them would bet ever-larger amounts at ever-lower odds… until “Boom!” (2008 Crisis) suddenly the best player was discovered to completely have lost his ability to play and lost in three blank sets to a newcomer.

PS. Here is somewhat more extensive aide memoire on the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

“If you see something say something”. Yes, but it’s not easy to be a whistleblower on our too inept bank regulators.

Sir, never ever has a bank crisis of any important magnitude resulted from excessive exposures to something that was perceived as risky when placed on the balance sheets of banks.

These have always resulted from unexpected events, like major devaluations, criminal behavior or excessive exposures to something that was perceived as safe when incorporated in the balance sheets of banks but that ex post turned out to be risky.

So when bank regulators, like with their Basel II of 2004 set the risk weights for what is rated AAA at 20%, and that of the below BB- rated at 150%, then this is a too serious clue of them not knowing what they’re doing.

And the above is far from being their only mistake or the only proof of that.

I have been shouting my lungs out about this basically since 1997, but it is very difficult for an ordinary citizen, even for someone who for some years was an Executive Director at the World Bank, to have someone to listen to him, when he holds that our supposed expert bank regulators left a bomb in our real economy.

PS. I will send the above letter to as many editors I can.

Financial Times

New York Times

Wall Street Journal

Washington Post

Svenska Dagbladet

The Economist

And here is my letter to the Financial Stability Board, March 2019

The litmus test any aspiring central banker or bank regulator should have to pass

Fact: Banks are allowed to leverage more with assets considered safe, like loans to sovereigns, the AAArisktocracy and mortgages, than with assets considered risky, like loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs.

So ask the candidates:

Does that mean “the safe” have even more and easier access to bank credit than usual; and “the risky” have even less and on more expensive terms access to bank credit than usual?

If the answer is no, disqualify the candidate.

If the answer is yes, then ask: 

Do you think that might dangerously distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy? Or impede QE stimulus flow to where it could be most productive?

If the answer is no, disqualify the candidate.

If the answer is yes, then ask: 

In terms of what can pose the greatest risk to the bank system, would you agree with Basel II’s risk weights of 20% for what is rated AAA to AA and 150% for what is rated below BB-?

If the answer is yes, disqualify the candidate.

If the answer is no, then ask: 

Do you agree with a 0% risk weighting of sovereigns?

If the answer is yes, the candidate should be classified as an incurable statist, not independent at all, and accordingly dismissed.

If the answer is no, then one could proceed applying any other criteria considered relevant.

As a relevant criteria, the way the world looks, being a lucky person seems a quite valid one.

PS. How many of those currently in central banks, or in the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, or in the Financial Stability Board would pass this test?

@PerKurowski

Paul Krugman there's huge Excel type data mistake that is bringing the Western economies down into deep depression

Ref: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/paul-krugman-the-excel-depression.html

The regulators of the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, when designing their risk weighted capital requirements for banks made the outrageous mistake of looking at the specific risks of banks assets, and not at the risk of those assets to the banks, or to the bank system.

That is why they came to assign a whopping 150% risk weight to what is rated below BB-, something so risky that bankers wont even touch it with a ten feet pole; while only a minuscule risk weight of 20% to what is rated AAA and that because of its perceived safety, could cause banks to create such exposures that if ex post the asset turn out riskier, these could bring the whole system down.

That makes banks dangerously lend too much to what is perceived safe and for the economy equally dangerous too little to what is perceived as risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs. 

The Western world has thrived on risk-taking not risk aversion.

PS. The 0% risk weighing of sovereigns is just as mind-boggling.

Could a hostile power create bank regulations capable of destroying our Western financial system? It would seem so :-(

David Bookstaber in his “The End of Theory”, 2017 refers to the following question:

“If you were a hostile foreign power, how could you disrupt or destroy the U.S. financial system? That is how do you create a crisis?

Well one way to do it begins, as does any strategic offensive, with the right timing. Wait until the system exposes a vulnerability. Maybe that is when it’s filled with leverage, and when assets become shaky.”

Then Bookstaber suggests: “create a fire sale by pressing down prices to trigger forced selling…freeze funding by destroying confidence… maybe pull out your money from some institutions with some drama… and to make money, short the market before you start pushing things off the cliff”

That is Bookstaber’s interesting tale on what “turned the vulnerabilities of 2006 and 2007 into the crisis of 2008, and nearly destroyed our system.” “And we didn’t need an enemy power; we did it all by ourselves.

But what if it all had started with a hostile foreign power taking over bank regulations in order to create the vulnerabilities?

I mean like telling banks they could hold 1.6% in capital or less, meaning a 62.5 to 1 or more leverage, against assets with an AAA rating (like some fatal MBS) or against sovereigns, like Greece. That would give banks the chance to earn fabulous expected risk adjusted margins on those assets, and therefore build up huge exposures to these against very little capital (equity).

I ask, because that was exactly what the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision did with its Basel II of 2004.

And to top it up their AAA-bomb was so powerful that, because it discriminates against the access to bank credit of “the risky”, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, the economy would find it almost impossible to recover on its own; and the crisis-can had to be kicked further and further down the road, with Tarps, QEs, fiscal deficits and silly low interest rates? 

http://theaaa-bomb.blogspot.com

What if traffic regulators, to make your town safe, limited motorcycles to 8 mph but allowed cars to speed at 62 mph?

The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in cars is 1.14

The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in motorcycles is 21.45

That could indicate that in terms of risks measured and expressed as credit ratings, the cars should be rated AAA, and motorcycles below BB-.

But in 2011, in the US, 4,612 persons died in motorcycle accidents.

And in 2011, in the US, 32,479 persons died in vehicle accidents.

That explains the differences between ex-ante perceived risk and the ex-post dangers conditioned by the ex-ante perceptions. Cars are more dangerous to the society than motorcycles, in much because the latter are perceived as much riskier.

But what did bank regulators do in Basel II, 2004?

By weighting for ex-ante perceived risks their basic capital requirement of 8%, they allowed banks to leverage 62.5 times to 1 when AAA-ratings were present, and 8.3 times in the case of below BB- ratings.

So, what if traffic regulators, in order to make your hometown safe, limited motorcycles to 8 mph but allowed cars to speed at 62 mph?

Do you see why I argue that current bank regulators in the Basel Committee and in the Financial Stability Board have no idea about what they are doing?

But it is even worse. We need SMEs and entrepreneurs to access bank credit in order to generate future opportunities for our kids. Unfortunately, since when starting out these usually have to drive more risky motorcycles than safe cars, our future real economy gets also slapped in the face. 

An 8% capital requirement translates into a 12.5 to 1 leverage. Why can’t our regulators allow banks to speed through our economy at 12.5mph, independently of whether they go by cars or motorcycles?

PS: Here is a more detailed explanation of the mother of all regulatory mistakes.

Regulators looking after the same risks bankers look at

A challenge: Can you spot the lunacy in the Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements for banks?

These are the facts established by Basel II in 2004.

1. Very safe AAA to AA rated = 20% risk weight = 1.6% capital requirement = 62.5 times to 1 allowed leverage.

2. Very risky below BB- rated = 150% risk weight = 12% capital requirement = 8.3 times to 1 allowed leverage.

So what’s crazy with that?

Let me give you a clue! 

What can create those kinds of excessive bank exposures that could bring down a bank system?

Mr Watson IBM, besides helping wine growers, when are you going to tell bank regulators they’re so wrong?

Bank regulators, thinking they are so smart, assigned a meager 20% risk weight for what is rated AAA to AA, and a whopping 150% to what is rated below BB-.

That allows banks to hold much less capital against assets rated AAA to AA than against assets rated below BB-.

Now you tell me Watson, what is more dangerous to our banking system, that rated AAA to AA, that because is perceived as so safe could lead to the dangerous build-up of excessive bank exposures, or that which because it is rated below BB- bankers wont touch with a ten feet pole?

So, when are you going to offer to help the bank regulators? They sure need it! We sure need it!

A safer banking system compared to our current dangerously misregulated one with so many systemic risks on steroids

What is a safer banking system?

One in which thousand banks compete and those not able to do so fail as fast as possible, before some major damage has been done, while even, as John Kenneth Galbraith explained, often leaving something good in their wake. 

What is a dangerous banking system?

One were all banks are explicitly or implicitly supported, by taxpayers, as long as they follow one standard mode that includes living wills, stress tests, risk models, credit ratings, standardized risk weights... all potential sources of dangerous systemic risks.

A bank system in which whenever there is a major problem, the can gets kicked down the road with QEs and there is no cleaning up, and banks just get bigger and bigger.

One that make it more plausible that the banks will all come crashing down on us, at the same time, with excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived safe that ex-post turned out risky, and therefore the banks holding especially little capital.

But you don’t worry; the regulators have it all under control with their Dodd-Frank’s Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA). “Orderly”? Really?

So that is why when I hear about banks “cheating” with their risk models I am not too upset, since that at least introduces some diversity. 

Also that cheating stops, at least for a while, the Basel Committee regulators from imposing their loony standardized risk weights of 20% for what has an AAA rating, and so therefore could be utterly dangerous to the system; and one of 150% for the innocuous below BB- rated that bankers don’t like to touch with a ten feet pole.

How did we end up here? That is where you are bound to end up if you allow some statist technocrats, full of hubris, to gather in a mutual admiration club, and there engage into some intellectually degenerating incestuous groupthink.

Statist? What would you otherwise call those who assign a 0% risk weight to the Sovereign and one of 100% to the citizen?

And it is all so purposeless and useless!

Purposeless? “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for”, John A Shedd

Useless? “May God defend me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies”, Voltaire

In essence it means that while waiting for all banks to succumb because of lack of oxygen in the last overpopulated safe-haven available, banks will no longer finance the "riskier" future our grandchildren need is financed, but only refinance the "safer" present and past.

In April 2003, as an Executive Director of the World Bank I argued: "A mixture of thousand solutions, many of them inadequate, may lead to a flexible world that can bend with the storms. A world obsessed with Best Practices may calcify its structure and break with any small wind."

PS. FDIC... please don't go there!

Note: For your info, before 1988, we had about 600 years of banking without risk weighted capital requirements for banks distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

PS. The best of the Financial Choice Act is a not distorting, not systemic risks creating, 10% capital requirement for all assets. Its worst? That this is not applied to all banks.

PS. If I were a regulator: Bank capital requirements = 3% for bankers' ineptitude + 7% for unexpected events = 10% on all assets = Financial Choice Act
 

Here is one mystery in current bank regulations that regulators refuse to reveal to us.

That which has an AAA rating, meaning it is perceived as very safe, will of course have much access to bank credit, and be required to pay very low risk premiums. If those ratings then turn out to be wrong, sometimes precisely because since it was considered very safe too much credit was given to it, individual banks, and the bank system, face a very serious problem.

That which has a below a BB- rating, meaning it is perceived as extremely risky, has access to much less credit and, when it gets it, will be by paying much higher risk premiums. If those ratings turn out to be even worse, some individual bank might have a smaller problem, but the bank system as such, would face no problems at all.

But, an here is the mystery, bank regulators, with their Basel II, in June 2004, for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, set a 20% risk weight for the AAA rated and 150% for what is below BB-.

Why so? If "safe" could be dangerous and "risky" is innocuous, could it not really be the other way around?

And that, since regulators refuse to explain it, is now, soon 13 years later, still a mystery to us

PS. Questions regulators refuse to answer

Stefan Ingves, years after Basel Committee’s failure, you all have still no idea about how to regulate banks.

On December 2, 2016 Stefan Ingves, the Chairman of the Basel Committee gave a Keynote speech at the second Conference on Banking Development, Stability and Sustainability, titled “Finalising Basel III: Coherence, calibration and complexity” 

In it Ingves stated: “an area of further research which would be welcome relates to how we should think about the capital benefits of allowing banks to use internally modelled approaches, and therefore the appropriate calibration of capital floors to such models. What are the pre-conditions for such models to produce better outcomes than, say, simpler standardised approaches? And to whom do the benefits of improved modelling accrue? If a bank using a model can lower its capital requirements by, say, 30%, what are the financial stability and real economy benefits of such an approach? To what extent do the benefits of modelling accrue to lower-risk borrowers as opposed to the parties being compensated for developing and using the models?”

That is clear evidence that the Basel Committee still, soon ten years after the crisis, their failure, has no idea about what it is doing. It should concern us all. 

Here’s one example on of how the Basel Committee’s has totally confused ex ante risks with ex post risks. In their Basel II standardized risk weights the weight assigned to AAA assets is 20% while the weight of a highly speculative below BB- rated assets was set at 150%. 

I ask: What has much greater chance of taking the banking system down, excessive exposures to something ex ante believed very safe or excessive exposures to something believed very risky? The answer should be clear. Never ever have bank crises resulted from excessive exposures to something believe risky when placed on the balance sheet; these have always resulted from unexpected events (like devaluations), criminal behavior or excessive exposures to something perceived ex ante as very safe but that ex post turned out to be very risky. 

The truth is that the Basel Committee told banks: “Go out and leverage your capital more than with assets that are safe”. And so when disaster happens, like with AAA rated securities, banks stand there more naked than ever.

Of course, the other side of that coin is, “Do not go and lend to what is risky”. So banks dangerously for the real economy stopped lending to SMEs and entrepreneurs… something that is never considered when stress testing.

To top it up, like vulgar statist activists, they set a risk weight of 0% for the Sovereign and one of 100% for We the People; which translates into a belief that government bureaucrats can use bank credit more efficiently than the private sector… something which of course created the excessive indebtedness of Greece and other.

One final comment, the regulators naivety is boundless: “to whom do the benefits of improved modeling accrue? asks Ingves” Clearly there is no understanding of that bankers will, as is almost their duty, always look to minimize capital if so allowed, in order to obtain the highest expected risk adjusted returns on equity. 

When fake regulators supervise banks; totally unsupervised banks is much better.

PS. Must one go on a hunger strike to have the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision answer some very basic questions? 

Must one go on a hunger strike to have the Basel Committee or FSB answer some very basic questions?

Before regulating banks did you ever define their purpose? I know we all want them to be safe but, as John Augustus Shedd said: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” 

By allowing for different capital requirements based on ex ante perceived risks of assets, banks will be able to leverage their equity (and the support given by authorities) differently, which will cause quite different expected risk adjusted returns for different assets, than would have been the case in the absence of this regulation. Were you never concerned about how this would distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy? 

Since ex ante perceived risk were already considered by bankers when deciding on the amounts of exposures and interest rates, when you decided that the perceived risk was also going to determine capital requirements, you doubled up on perceived risk. Don’t you know that any risk, even if perfectly perceived, causes the wrong actions if excessively considered? 

In the case of larger and more “sophisticated” banks, you allowed these to use their own internal risk models to determine capital requirements. (Something like allowing Volkswagen to calculate their own emissions) Was it not naïve of you to believe banks would not naturally aim for lower capital requirements, in order to increase their expected risk adjusted returns on equity?

What’s perceived as safe can be leveraged into being utterly dangerous, only because of that perception; while what’s perceived as risky is automatically less dangerous, precisely because of that perception. Or as Voltaire said: “May God defend me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies”. In this respect can you explain the logic behind your standardized Basel II risk weights of 20% for what is AAA to AA rated, and 150% for what is rated below BB-? 

In the same vein what empirical research did you carry out to determine that what is perceived ex ante as risky has caused major bank crises? I ask because as far as I know these have always been caused by unexpected event, like natural disasters or devaluations, by fraudulent criminal behavior, or by excessive exposures to what ex ante was considered as safe but that ex post turned out to be very risky. 

In other words since bank capital is there for the unexpected is it not dumb to require it based on the expected?

A risk weight of 0% for the sovereign, and 100% for We the People clearly implies you regulators all believe government bureaucrats make better use of bank credit than the private sector. Are you really such statists? Did you never consider that such dramatic rearrangement of economic power needed approval by for instance a Congress or a Parliament… or even a referendum? 

Finally do you really believe that with such risk adverse regulations, layered on top of banker’s own risk aversion, our economies would have developed as they did? Don't you see that banks are no longer financing the riskier future but only refinancing the "safer" present and past? Don't you see this decrees inequality?

PS. FT’s / Financial Times Establishment, notwithstanding my soon 2.500 letters to it on “subprime bank regulations” has also steadfastly refused to help me get answers to these questions.

PS. And here is one evidence of that I have posed my objections during formal consultations by the Basel Committee

PS. And I dreamt I got this letter with their answers!

PS. And I am 100% for the 10% on all assets capital requirement for small banks in the Financial Choice Act. I just hope it was applied to all banks, foremost the biggest, as these need it the most, as we need these to be better capitalized the most.