Fed, during the last 15 years what were the capital requirements for a US bank when lending to Puerto Rico?

The single most important reason for which Greece’s debt levels got so out of whack was that the European bank regulators, out of misunderstood solidarity, also gave Greece, for purposes of capital requirements for banks a 0% risk weight. 

That of course allowed banks to leverage much more loans to Greece than loans let us say to an unrated European SME, which of course allowed banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity lending to Greece than lending to an unrated European SME. (The Greek citizens now suffering have not held those regulators accountable for that lunacy)

Now we read: “The Puerto Rico debt, a result of generations of mismanagement, was enabled by Wall Street, which was enticed by the fact it was tax free everywhere in the U.S. and risky enough to provide rich yields.” “Trump Suggests Puerto Rico’s Debt May Need to Be ‘Wiped Out’” Justin Sink, Bloomberg, October 3.

“Mismanagement?” With respect to debt it takes as a minimum two to tango, the borrower and the creditor; and since distorting risk weighted capital requirements were introduced, the regulators also participate in that dance. 

So my immediate info request to the Fed would be: Over the last 15 years, so that we have some pre 2007-08 crisis figures too, can you show us precisely the evolution of how much capital American banks were required to hold when lending to Puerto Rico?

Who knows, Puerto Rican citizens might want to sue the Fed for stimulating an excessive lending/borrowing to Puerto Rico.

PS. It would also be interesting to know how much banks were required to hold against a loan to an unrated SME in Puerto Rico. To compare those requirements would allow us to establish whether there was some statist regulatory favoritism of the Puerto Rico government. 

The Riskiness of Country Risk

An Unsustainable Debt Sustainability 

Regulators make banks finance “safe” basements where young can live with their parents, not the risky jobs they need.

Ever since regulators introduced credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks, these are not financing sufficiently the "riskier" future, only refinancing excessively the "safer" past and present.

For instance, the risk weight of 35% when financing “safe” houses, and of 100% when financing “risky” SMEs, results only in the building of basements where the young can live with their parents, and not in the creation of the new generation of jobs the young need.

Here's an aide memoire on the monstrous mistakes of such capital requirements.

When and where did the last bank crisis resulting from excessive exposures to something ex ante believed risky occur?

I don't know. Ask the regulators in the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the Financial Stability Board. 

I mean they must have much data on this because, without it, why would they impose credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks, knowing that carried the huge cost of distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy?

I mean that if they use the theorem that what's perceived as risky is riskier to the bank system than what is perceived as safe, then they are indeed using a loony theorem.

Or did they not look for the data?  Or did they not understand it?

Evidence that demonstrates, without any reasonable doubt, we have landed us some very feeble-minded bank regulators

What are the chances banks build up huge exposures to those rated prime, AAA to AA, and which could be dangerous to the bank system, if these, ex post, turn out to have been worthy of a much lower rating? Big!

What are the chances banks build up dangerously large exposures to those rated “highly speculative “ and worse below BB-? None! 

And yet the regulators, for the purposes of determining the capital requirements for banks, in Basel II, assigned to the AAA to AA rated, a risk weight of 20%, and to the below BB- rated, a risk weight of 150%.

And to top it up, the risk weights are portfolio invariant.

Do we really need more evidence that the Basel Committee regulators and those affiliated to it are cuckoo?

They behave like nannies telling the children “Stay away from the ugly and foul smelling, and embrace the nice gents bringing you candy”, and so dangerously distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

Voltaire to the Basel Committee: “May God defend me from my friends [AAA rated]: I can defend myself from my enemies [BB- rated]”

Here is a brief memo that further explains their idiocy.

Bank regulators… dare to answer this single question

There are literally thousand of risks, especially many unexpected risks, which could bring our banking system down.

And so why on earth did you regulators base your capital requirements for banks, those which are to cover especially for unexpected risks, solely on the ex ante perceived credit risk, that which is basically the only risk already cleared for by banks, by means of interests risk premiums and the size of their exposures?

And, to top it up, you made those capital requirements portfolio invariant… as if diversification has no meaning?

If anything, should you not have based it on the risks that bankers were not able to clear for those perceived risks?

Since that dangerously distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, do we not deserve a clear-cut answer on that?

I have been asking this for over a decade, and you have not even wanted to acknowledge my question. Does that not tell you something?

Bank regulators, why, why, why?

If all bank crisis in history have resulted from excessive exposures to what was perceived as “absolutely safe”, or at least very safe, and none ever from excessive exposures to what was perceived as risky… what is the rationale behind capital requirements for banks which are much lower for what is perceived as absolutely safe, or at least very safe, than those for what is perceived as “risky”? 

Some questions today to The Masters of Risk