Since they believe it to be safer, regulators want banks to finance house purchases much more than job creating entrepreneurs. Doesn’t anyone of them have grandchildren?

Let us suppose that in a world without risk weighted capital requirements, like the world of banking was for around 600 years before 1988’s Basel Accord, a world with one single capital requirement against all bank assets, for instance 8%.

Let us also suppose that in that world banks would view residential mortgages at 5% interest rate to be, when adjusted to perceived credit risks, equivalent to 9% interest rate on loans to entrepreneurs, and that, for both these assets, their expected risk adjusted net margin was 1%.

In that case, since banks could leverage 12.5 times their equity (100/8) the expected risk adjusted return on equity, on both these assets, would be 12.5%

How many residential mortgages and how many loans to entrepreneurs were given in such a world? I have no idea but adjusted for their perceived credit risk, it was clear both house buyers and entrepreneurs competed equally for credit. 

But then came the Basel Committee with its risk weighted bank capital requirements, and for instance in its 2004 Basel II, assigned a risk weight of 35% to residential mortgages and 100% for loans to unrated entrepreneurs. 

That, for Basel’s basic capital requirement of 8%, meant banks needed to hold 2.8% in capital against residential mortgages and 8% against loans to entrepreneurs.

This in turn meant banks could in the case of loans to entrepreneurs still leverage 12.5 times but now, with residential mortgages, they could leverage almost 36 times (100/2.8). 

And in this case, with the same as expected risk adjusted margin of 1%, banks could still earn12.5% in expected risk adjusted return on equity, but residential mortgages now offered them the possibility of earning a whooping 36% in expected risk adjusted return on equity.

Clearly house buyers were much favored since banker would offer residential mortgages much more and even contemplate some interest rate reductions, while the entrepreneurs had their access to credit much curtailed that is unless they offered to pay higher interest rates.

So what does all this result in? Houses morphing from affordable home into being risky investment assets, while at the same time much less of those job opportunities that entrepreneurs might have helped to create for us and our descendants.

Thinking of our grandchildren’s future is this kind of bank regulations acceptable? Absolutely not! “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A. Shedd.

PS. Much worse statist regulators assigned 0% risk weights on loans to the sovereign, which de facto implied government bureaucrats to use credit for which they are not personally responsible for much better, than for instance entrepreneurs.

PS. Here's a probably still not finished list of the mistakes with the risk weighted bank capital requirements 

J’Accuse[d] the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) a thousands times, but I am no Émile Zola and there’s no L’Aurore

J’Accuse the Basel Committee of setting up our bank systems to especially large crises, caused by especially large exposures to something perceived as especially safe, which later turns into being especially risky, while held against especially little capital.

My letter to the Financial Stability Board

J’Accuse the Basel Committee for distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy by favoring the sovereign and the safer present, AAA rated and residential mortgages, while discriminating against the riskier future, SMEs and entrepreneurs.

My letter to the International Monetary Fund

A question to the Fed: When in 1988 bank regulators assigned America’s public debt a 0.00% risk weight, its debt was about $2.6 trillion, now it is around $22 trillion and still has a 0.00% risk weight. When do you think it should increase to 0.01%?

Trade wars will mean new tariffs

There is another tariff war that is being dangerously ignored. 

The July 6 editorial "A splendid little tariff war?" rightly held that "tariffs create all sort of inefficiencies, unintended consequences and uncertainty."

The risk-weighted capital requirements for banks also translate de facto into subsidies and tariffs, which have resulted in a too much-ignored allocation of bank credit war. 

One consequence is that those perceived as risky, such as entrepreneurs, have their access to bank credit made more difficult than usual, and our economy suffers. Another is that by promoting excessive exposures to what is especially dangerous, because it is perceived as safe, against especially little capital, guarantees that when a bank crisis results, it will be especially bad. 

In terms of Mark Twain's supposed saying, these regulations have bankers lending out the umbrella faster than usual when the sun shines and wanting it back faster than usual when it looks like it is going to rain.

Letter published in the Washington Post

Here other of my letters in the Washington Post on this issue:
September 6, 2007: Factors in the Financial Storm
June 20, 2008: An Aspect of the Bubble
December 27, 2009: Another 'worst': Faulty bank regulation

January 6, 2012: Handcuffed by a triple-A rating
May 1, 2013: An American approach to banking
December 23, 2014: Let the market rule on risky trades
November 11, 2015: Reverse-mortgaging the future
August 9, 2016: Banks, regulators and risk
April 16, 2017: When banks play it too safe 

December 30, 2018: Affordable homes or investment assets?

Should we not expect the Fed to do something if they hear they are distorting the allocation of bank credit?

I refer to the letter from Managed Funds Association to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System titled “Supplemental Comments in Response to Federal Reserve Staff Questions on Managed Funds Association Regulatory Priorities”

In it, discussing “the flow-through impacts of the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) on the buy- side’s use of centrally cleared derivatives” MFA comments: 

“At present the SLR is having a more direct impact on banks… [there are] cases in which certain banks have exited the clearing business altogether,or have reduced client clearing services.

Of course, banking organizations allocate capital to business lines based on expected returns. As such, an organization will use its balance sheet to fund businesses that can meet return-on-equity (“ROE”) targets given the amount of capital required to be held against the activities of each business.”

That is a crystal clear explanation (or confession) that bank’s business lines ROE targets are adjusted by “the amount of capital required to be held against the activities of each business.”

So therefore it should be crystal clear that whatever is ex ante perceived, decreed or can be concocted as safe, currently, because of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, can easier meet the ROE targets of banks than what is perceived as risky.

So therefore it should be crystal clear the “safe” financing of house purchases, sovereigns and AAA rated securities, will stand too much better chances to meet the ROE targets of banks than the financing of “risky” entrepreneurs or SMEs.

So therefore it should be crystal clear that house purchases, sovereigns and AAA rated securities will obtain much easier credit, and that entrepreneurs or SMEs will see their difficulties to access credit only be increased.

Damn that distortion!

By giving banks the incentives to further increase, against especially little capital, the exposures to what being perceived as “safe” always represent the detonators, they set bank crisis on steroids.

By giving banks the incentives to further reduce the exposures to what’s “risky”, that dooms the economies to stagnation.

And as usual, most probably the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System won’t care one iota about that, as they until now see as their only bank regulatory role, that of keeping the banks as safe mattresses into which to stash away cash… and never concern themselves whether these mattresses might be infested by the lice of dangerous uselessness.

Current bank regulators should undergo a psychological test. They clearly seem to be afflicted by “false safety behavior”

I extract the following from “False Safety Behaviors: Their Role in Pathological Fear” by Michael J. Telch, Ph.D. 

“What are false safety behaviors? 

We define false safety behaviors (FSBs) as unnecessary actions taken to prevent, escape from, or reduce the severity of a perceived threat. There is one specific word in this definition that distinguishes legitimate adaptive safety behaviors - those that keep us safe - from false safety behaviors - those that fuel anxiety problems? If you picked the word unnecessary you’re right! But when are they unnecessary? Safety behaviors are unnecessary when the perceived threat for which the safety behavior is presumably protecting the person from is bogus.”

The risk weighted capital requirements for banks, more perceived risk more capital – less perceived risk less capital, fits precisely that of being unnecessary. If a risk is perceived the banker will naturally take defensive measures, like limiting the exposure or charging higher risk premiums. If there is a real risk that is of the assets being perceived ex ante as safe, but turning up ex post as risky.

The consequences of such false safety behavior by current bank regulators are severe:

They set banks up to having the least capital when the most dangerous event can happen, something very safe turning very risky. 

Equally, or even more dangerous, it distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, it hinder the needed “riskier” financing of the future, like entrepreneurs, in order to finance the “safer” present, like house purchases and sovereigns.

It creates a false sense of security because why should anyone really expect that “experts” picked the wrong risks to weigh, the intrinsic risk of the asset, instead of the risk of the asset for the banking system.

I quote again from the referenced document:

“How do false safety behaviors fuel anxiety? 

There seems to be a growing consensus that FSB’s fuel pathological anxiety in several different ways. One way in which FSBs might do their mischief is by keeping the patient’s bogus perception of threat alive through a mental process called misattribution. Misattribution theory asserts that when people perform unnecessary safety actions to protect themselves from a perceived threat, they falsely conclude (misattribute) their safety to the use of the FSB, thus leaving their perception of threat intact. Take for instance, the flying phobic who copes with their concern that the plane will crash by repeatedly checking the weather prior to the flight’s departure and then misattributes her safe flight to her diligent weather scanning rather than the inherent safety of air travel.” 

In this respect stress tests and living wills could perhaps be identified as “unnecessary safety actions” the “checking of the weather”. 

Finally: “FSBs may fuel anxiety problems by also interfering with the basic process through which people come to learn that some of their perceived threats are actually not threats at all…threat disconfirmation…For this important perceived threat reduction process to occur, not only must new information be available but it also must be processed.”

The 2007/08 crisis provided all necessary information on that the risk weighting did not work, since all bank assets that became very problematic, had in common low capital requirements since they were perceived as safe. And this information has simply not been processed.

Conclusion, I am not a psychologist but given that our banking system operates efficiently is of utmost importance, perhaps a psychological screening of all candidates to bank regulators should be a must. Clearly the current members of the Basel Committee and of the Financial Stability Board, and those engaged with bank regulations in many central banks, would not pass such test.

I feel sorry for them, especially after finding on the web someone referring to "anxiety disorder" with: “I don’t think people understand how stressful it is to explain what’s going on in your head when you don’t even understand it yourself”

PS. Here is a brief summary of the mistakes of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

  

The Finalization of Basel III’s is just a photo-op for the Committee members to go home for Christmas with, as it does nothing to correct the fundamental flaws of current bank regulations.

The Basel Committee’s “Finalizing Basel III” brief states: 

1. “What is Basel III? The Basel III framework is a central element of the Basel Committee’s response to the global financial crisis. It addresses a number of shortcomings in the pre-crisis regulatory framework and provides a foundation for a resilient banking system that will help avoid the build-up of systemic vulnerabilities. The framework will allow the banking system to support the real economy through the economic cycle.”

Since the risk weighted capital requirements are kept, that is simply not true! The global financial crisis was a direct consequence of regulations that allowed banks to leverage immensely their capital as long as they kept to “safe” assets: limitless leverage with exposures to friendly sovereigns, 62.5 times with private sector exposures rated AAA to AA, and 35.7 times with residential mortgages. 

The exaggerated demand these regulations created for residential mortgages and highly rated securities, which caused serious deteriorations in their quality, and of loans to low risk decreed sovereigns, like Greece, explains 99.9% of the financial crisis.

In contrast when lending to an entrepreneur or an unrated small or medium size enterprise, as that was (is) considered risky, banks were only allowed to leverage 12.5 times. The differences in potential risk adjusted returns on equity between “safe” and “risky” assets hindered, and hinders, the banking system from adequately supporting the real economy

2. “What do the 2017 reforms do? “The 2017 reforms seek to restore credibility in the calculation of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) and improve the comparability of banks’ capital ratios. RWAs are an estimate of risk that determines the minimum level of regulatory capital a bank must maintain to deal with unexpected losses. A prudent and credible calculation of RWAs is an integral element of the risk-based capital framework.”

But the fundamental question of why it should be prudent to require banks to hold more capital against what is perceived risky, when the real dangers to the bank system is when something perceived as safe turns out risky, remains unanswered.

3. “Credibility of the framework: A range of studies found an unacceptably wide variation in RWAs across banks that cannot be explained solely by differences in the riskiness of banks’ portfolios. The unwarranted variation makes it difficult to compare capital ratios across banks and undermines confidence in capital ratios. The reforms will address this to help restore the credibility of the risk-based capital framework. 

Internal models should allow for more accurate risk measurement than the standardised approaches developed by supervisors. However, incentives exist to minimise risk weights when internal models are used to set minimum capital requirements. In addition, certain types of asset, such as low-default exposures, cannot be modelled reliably or robustly. The reforms introduce constraints on the estimates banks make when they use their internal models for regulatory capital purposes, and, in some cases, remove the use of internal models.” 

Where do regulators get the idea that if there are less-variations in RWAs, the standardized RWAs, based on how regulators perceive risks, are any more accurate? Excessive hubris? Have they forgotten their own “Standardized” risk weights? Alzheimer? 

Also, since banks should clear for perceived risks in the size of the exposures and interest rates, making them clear for those same risks in the capital too, causes an excessive consideration of perceived risks. The regulators clearly keep on ignoring that any risk, even if perfectly perceived, causes the wrong actions, if excessively considered.

That regulators now, at long last, have understood that “incentives exist to minimise risk weights when internal models are used to set minimum capital”, serves little as consolation, as it just evidences their original naiveté.

PS. As an aide memoire for the regulators to take home for Christmas here’s a list of their mistakes. Am I being nasty? No! How many millions of entrepreneurs have over the years been negated access to the life changing opportunities of a bank credit, only because of these regulators? How many young must live in the basement of their parents houses without jobs, only because regulator think it is safer to finance houses than job creation opportunities? Let’s pray all the Ebenezer Scrooge in the Basel Committee will see light one day... or at least have the decency to fade away.  

Explaining to World Bank and IMF the horrific mistakes of Basel’s bank regulations, has not been an easy journey

http://live.worldbank.org/civil-society-townhall-2017

28:30, I am Per Kurowski, of New Rules for Global Finance

This is a question for the umpteenth time to the World Bank:

As the world’s premier development bank the World Bank must know that risk-taking is the oxygen of any development. So why is it still not speaking out against the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks that put a brake on risk-taking, like on the lending to SMEs small and medium sized enterprises…even though never ever has a major bank crisis erupted because of excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as risky.

30:50, World Bank, Jim Yong Kim

On risk taking I am not sure I understood the question correctly, but there is, because of in many ways I think very much necessary prudential rules, the Basel process, one of the side effects of it is that it has been a systematic de-banking of many developing countries, especially in Africa. 

And so many banks Standard Chartered and others that had very strong presence in the developing world have for the most part left. And so we have a terrible time in terms of accessing capital markets in the way that they did before.

So it’s a huge concern for us, and we are continuing to engage with the Basel process and we are continuing to try to talk about some of the side effects. For example it is much more difficult and expensive to send remittances back now because these institutions don’t exist. 

And so the problem of insuring that the poorest countries have access to capital markets is very-very high on our agenda, and is really at the core of the major issue we talked about in spring meetings which is our cascade; and the cascade is essentially recognition that on the one hand it is very difficult for very good emerging markets infrastructure projects to get capital, and on the other hand there is more than 10 trillion dollars in negative interest bond, and 25 plus trillions in very low earning bonds and another 8 trillion in cash sitting in peoples safes, and they would like to get a higher return, but the perception of risk in the emerging market is so high, that the capital is just not moving.

So we are putting so much of our effort into mitigating this situation where you have great projects, great potential for building infrastructure that would lead to growth but that are not being financed; we are really focusing on filling that void on the problem I think you are pointing to.

My comment: It was not answering my real question but it was still a very valid answer. If given a chance my re-question would have been: Do you think Standard Chartered would have left those development markets had it had to hold the same capital against all its assets than what it is required to hold on loans to these markets? The answer to that is surely “No!”

35:25, IMF, Mme Christine Lagarde.

I am actually tempted to address also this question, is that okay?

Because I think it is an important point and one that has very complex ramifications. It has complex ramifications in the banking regulations business, in the banking supervision business, and in the accounting business.

And then it is at the very junction of between sort of self-established model by the banks versus models established by the supervisors. 

I think we both would agree that methods that would actually encourage the lending by banks and by insurance companies and by pension fund to SMEs, you know with the risk associated with it, should actually be very much in order.

At the moment the risk weighing methods and the models that are being used are discouraging from actually investing and taking risk to benefit the small and medium sized enterprises 

And that’s not necessarily the best avenue to support the economy and to support entrepreneurs who want to have access to financing.

My comment: Many thanks, but Mme Lagarde, it really behooves the IMF, and the World Bank, to understand why it took them about 15 years, Basel II, to see this problem.

30:50 World Bank, Jim Yong Kim

Just to add to that, we are now trying to come up with lots of different innovative approaches to de-risking those investments, taking first loss, using political risk insurance credit enhancements, lot of tools that we are using now to try to respond to the situation

My comment: That is good to hear, but beware, de-risking credits, against distorted and inadequate bank regulations, could have very bad unexpected consequences.

PS. Very much inspired by John Kenneth Galbraith’s “Money: Whence it came, where it went” (1975), I started my fight against Basel Committee’s regulations in 1997, in my very first Op-Ed “Puritanism in Banking”.

And in 2003, as an Executive Director or the World Bank, in a workshop for bank regulators I warned: “The other side of the coin of a credit that was never granted, in order to reduce the vulnerability of the financial system, could very well be the loss of a unique opportunity for growth. In this sense, I put forward the possibility that the developed countries might not have developed as fast, or even at all, had they been regulated by a Basel.”

In 2007, ten years ago, at the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Developing at the United Nations, as civil society, I presented the document: “Are the Basel bank regulations good for development?”

And since then I do not know how many times, I have tried and failed to draw IMF’s and World Bank’s attention to the many very serious mistakes that are imbedded in Basel’s risk-weighted capital requirements for banks.

Have I arrived at the end of my journey? I am not 100% sure, but I do see some light J