We can’t shame enough the irresponsible silent experts and the plain lousy regulators

As an Executive Director of the World Bank and a member of its Audit Committee 2002-2004, time and again I repeated what I extract below from my book Voice and Noise, 2006.

“From what I have read and seen, I believe there is a clear possibility that much of the world’s financial markets are currently being dangerously overstretched through an exaggerated reliance on intrinsically weak financial models that are based on very short series of statistical evidence and very doubtful volatility assumptions”

I also frequently spoke out on the risk posed by empowering the credit rating agencies too much and, in May 2003, I even had a letter published in the Financial Times which ended with “I simply cannot understand how a world that preaches the value of the invisible hand of millions of market agents can then go out and delegate so much regulatory power to a limited number of human and very fallible credit-rating agencies. This sure must be setting us up for the mother of all systemic errors.”

Therefore if someone like me, a non-expert on financial markets, could have said the previous back in 2003-2004, I can only conclude that a crime of pure negligence, of sheer monumental proportions, was committed against humanity by an incredibly large number of professionals.

And so even though I agree of course that all those who pulled the triggers should go to prison, like those accused in Goldman Sachs, if proved guilty, in that prison, for true justice to be served, they should be accompanied by all those who kept mum because it was generally convenient for them to keep mum… and of course by the plain lousy regulators.

We must not let the intellectual mum-keepers go free! The world deserves more than some mea-culpa, the world deserves to find how to make the responsible speak up in time… if need be even by law.

The largest moral hazard is not having banks-bailed out… it is not shaming enough the irresponsible silent experts and the plain lousy regulators.

Some argue no one saw the crisis, “20.000 blind economists”, this is pure nonsense. Our biggest problem is how some few egos in a mutual admiration club dominate the debate and sell us what they believe sounds the best.

An unconstitutional odious discrimination!

When a bank lends to the government it is required to hold zero percent in equity; when it lends to a corporation rated AAA by one of three credit rating agencies then they need 1.6 percent; but, when lending to an entrepreneur or a small business that has not been rated, then the bank is required to hold 8 percent in equity. As bank equity is scarce and expensive this amount to an arbitrary discrimination against unrated entrepreneurs and small businesses.

If I was an entrepreneur or a small business in the US I would go to a judge and denounce that I am being discriminated against by the financial regulators, in an unconstitutional way.

I would also take the opportunity to explain to the judge how perfectly stupid this discrimination is considering that it is precisely the entrepreneurs and small businesses those who can create the real fiscally sustainable jobs, as well as the AAAs of tomorrow; and also remind the judge that entrepreneurs and small businesses had nothing to do in creating this crisis.

PS. What would the US Supreme court opine if asked: “Is a regulatory discrimination against The Risky and in favor of The Infallible, not an odious and unconstitutional negative action?”

Regulations as enemies of bank missions

In Venezuela, much has been discussed about the solvency of the financial intermediation entities, mainly banking. In virtue of the great attention paid to the subject of banking regulation throughout the world and our recent banking crisis being quite recent, this should not surprise us.

In the debate I think, it is important to remember, that the functions of the financial sector are not limited, simply, to return the money received from its depositors, since, if so, the traditional mattress could be sufficient to fulfill this mission.

Apart from providing other opportunities, which serve to stimulate national savings, as well as fulfilling the task of facilitating monetary flows, there are two other functions, of great social importance, that banks must comply with. The first is to be a very active agent in the process of generating wealth and the second, to collaborate in the function of democratizing capital, that is, allowing access to capital to those people who, lacking resources, have initiatives and will to work.

Supposedly, with the commitment and ability to fulfill these last two functions, the creation and distribution of wealth, both the application and the approval of a banking license were justified. How far is it from being true today! Next, I present some reflections on the subject.

In 1975 John Kenneth Galbraith, in his book entitled "Money, his origin and destiny", advanced the thesis that one of the fundamental reasons, for the past century was achieved, the economic development of the West and the Southwest of the States United, it was the existence of an aggressive and unregulated bank, which frequently broke down, causing great losses to individual depositors, but which, because of an agile and flexible credit policy, left a trail of development.

As for the democratization of capital, it is clear that the new banking regulation, now more than ever, obliges the bank to lend to the one who has and refuse as a credit client, the one who does not. The days when a banker, on the simple basis of a character trial, could approve a loan, without having to incur the cost of creating reserves, which presumes in advance the non-payment, went down in history.

Of course, with the foregoing, I do not refer to the immense amounts consumer loans. Today, we can question the wisdom of the regulator, noting the ease with which a consumer gets a loan and compare it with how difficult it can be to acquire a loan for productive purposes.

The saddest part of the regulatory chapter is that it never really immunizes us against risk. Even in portfolio based on probabilistic expectations and compensations by means of high interest rates we know that, one way or another, risk remain… and in many cases even trying to regulate, runs the risk of giving the impression that by means of strict regulations risks have disappeared. Sometimes it is good faith... sometimes it is only pure faith. When for example the SEC (Venezuela) arrogantly presumes of performing a significant mission, we know it is pure baloney.

Frequently, in matters of financial regulations, the most honest, logical and efficient is simply alert to alert about the risks and allow the market, by assigning prices for these, to develop its own paths.

I do not propose, not for a moment, that the State abandons completely the regulatory functions, much the contrary, what I propose is that it assumes it correctly. History is full of examples of where the State, by meddling to avoid damages, caused infinite larger damages. In the case of banking regulations developed to be applied in developed countries, I am not sure we are doing our country a favor adopting them with so much fervor.

But what are we to do? Regulations are fashionable and there are many bureaucrats in the world trying to find their little golden niche. I just read an article about a county in Maryland, USA, where, in order to be able to work as an astrologer and provider of horoscopes, you need to be registered and obtain a license in order to “read the hand palms. The cost of such license is 150 dollars.”

PS. And indeed the Basel Committee's risk weighted capital requirements has caused infinite damages.

PS. The page with the details of Maryland certified astrologers has disappeared, it might have been an early case of fake news :-( Now the certification is issued by AFA Certified Astrologers - American Federation of Astrologers

Economía Hoy