The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision’s bank regulations vs. mine.

A tweet to: @IMFNews, @WorldBank, @BIS_org @federalreserve, @ecb @bankofengland @riksbanken @bankofcanada

"Should you allow the Basel Committee to keep on regulating banks as it seems fit, or should you not at least listen to other proposals?

Bank capital requirements used to be set as a percentage of all assets, something which to some extent covered both EXPECTED credit risks, AND UNEXPECTED risks like major sudden downgrading of credit ratings, or a coronavirus.

BUT: Basel Committee introduced risk weighted bank capital requirements SOLELY BASED ON the EXPECTED credit risk. It also assumes that what is perceived as risky will cause larger credit losses than what regulators perceive or decreed as safe, or bankers perceive or concoct as safe. 

The different capital requirements, which allows banks to leverage their equity differently with different assets, dangerously distort the allocation of bank credit, endangering our financial system and weakening the real economy.

The Basel Committee also decreed a statist 0% risk weight for sovereign debts denominated in its domestic currency, based on the notion that sovereigns can always print itself out of any problem, something which clearly ignores the possibility of inflation, but, de facto, also implies that bureaucrats/politicians know better what to do with bank credit they are not personally responsible for, than for instance entrepreneurs, something which is more than doubtful.

Basel Committee's motto: Prepare for the best, for what's expected, and, since we do not know anything about it, ignore the unexpected 

I propose we go back to how banks were regulated before the Basel Committee, with an immense display of hubris, thought they knew all about risks; which means one single capital requirements against all assets; 10%-15%, to cover for the EXPECTED credit risk losses and for the UNEXPECTED losses resulting from wrong perceptions of credit risk, like 2008’s AAA rated securities or from any other unexpected risk, like COVID-19.

My one the same for all assets' capital requirement, would not distort the allocation of credit to the real economy.

My motto: Prepare for the worst, the unexpected, because the expected has always a way to take care of itself.


PS. My letter to the Financial Stability Board
PS. A continuously growing list of the risk weighted bank capital requirements mistakes

PS. Risk-weights are to access to credit what protectionist tariffs are to trade, only more pernicious.

PS. I am no newcomer to this issue

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.

Capital requirements for banks should be ex ante perceived risks neutral.

Professor Steve Hanke writes: “The calculated risk that a financial institution takes is best understood by the institution itself, not the government or any outside party” “Let Banks Manage Risks, Not Regulators” Forbes July 30, 2017.

I agree: For about 600 years banks use to run their banks as if each dollar invested in any asset was worth the same. Not any longer, since Basel I, 1988 and Basel II, 2004 some assets produce net margins that regulators allow them to leveraged much more than other. That meant that banks would find it easier to obtain higher risk adjusted returns on equity on some assets, those perceived ex ante as safe, than on other, those perceived as risky.

That of course distorted dangerously the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. The 2007-08 problems resulting mainly from excessive exposures to AAA rated securities and sovereigns, as well as the mediocre response to ultra large stimulus like QEs and minimal interest rates should suffice to prove it.

And I disagree: Because bank regulators should consider the risks that banks are not able to manage the risks they perceive, or that some unexpected events can put the system in danger. But since that has absolutely nothing to do with ex ante perceived risks per se, the capital requirements should be risk-perceived neutral, like for instance solely a leverage ratio. 

Besides, if regulators insist in risk weighing, only to show off some regulatory sophistication, so as to be known as important experts, then they should never forget that what really poses dangers to the banks system is what is perceived safe and never ever what is ex ante perceived very risky.

ECB Working Paper 2079, as is standard, also suffers from confusing ex ante perceived risks with ex post realities.

Jonathan Acosta Smith, Michael Grill, Jan Hannes Lang have produced a paper titled “The leverage ratio, risk-taking and bank stability”, ECB Working Paper 2079, June 2017, which analyzes the non-risk based leverage ratio (LR) that has been introduced in Basel III to work alongside the risk-based capital framework.

I quote: “The main concern relates to the risk-insensitivity of the LR: assets with the same nominal value but of different riskiness are treated equally and face the same capital that an LR has a skewed impact, binding only for those banks with a large share of low risk-weighted assets on their balance sheets, this move away from a solely risk-based capital requirement may induce these banks to increase their risk-taking; potentially offsetting any benefits from requiring them to hold more capital.” 

Unfortunately this paper suffers from the usual and tragic mistake of confusing ex ante perceived risks with ex post realities.

Basel Committee bank regulators acted like bankers and not like regulators, when they got fixated on the risk of the assets of the banks, and not on the risk those assets posed for the banking system. Had they done some empirical research on what caused previous bank crises, they would have seen that what was ex ante perceived as risky never played a mayor role.

As is Basel II’s risk weighted capital requirements allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity with assets ex ante perceived (decreed or concocted) as safe, than with assets perceived as risky. That results in banks building up dangerous exposures, against little capital, to assets that though ex ante perceived were perceived as very safe, could ex post turn out very risky. E.g. the AAA rated securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector.

The clearest way I have found to illustrate the regulator’s fundamental error is by referencing Basel II’s standardized risk weights:

It allocates a meager 20% risk weight to corporates "dangerously" rated AAA to AA, while assigning a 150% risk weight to the "innocuous" below BB- rated, that which banks would never touch with a ten feet pole.

And, with their risk weighting the regulators, with serious consequences, are also distorting the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. Since the introduction of Basel II, millions of “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs have not been able to access bank credit, or have had to pay extra compensatory interest charges, precisely because of this pillar.

Bank capital requirements should not be based on what is perceived but on the possibilities that the perceptions are wrong, that the perceptions are right but not adequately managed or that unexpected events could happen. 

In this respect I am all for one single capital requirement for all assets (including of course sovereign loans).

So does the introduction of the leverage ratio partly fulfill what I want? Unfortunately not! The more a leverage ratio translates into banks finding it difficult to meet regulatory bank capital requirements, the more will the risk-weighted requirements distort on the margin. I often refer this to the Drowning Pool simile.

Here is a more detailed list of the mistakes with risk weighting.

The Tier 1 Common Capital Ratio, to the Leverage Ratio, gives you the Hiding the Risks (in the bank) Ratio.

The Tier 1 common Capital Ratio uses in the denominator risk weighted assets, calculated with risk weights not assigned by me… the safer an assets is perceived to be or is deemed to be the lower its value.

The Leverage Ratio uses in the denominator the gross value (of most) assets.

Since I have always felt much more nervous about the assets a bank perceives as very safe compared to the assets it perceives as risky, I give much more importance to the Leverage Ratio, than to the Tier 1 Common Capital Ratio.

But the regulators would not allow me the data on the Leverage Ratio, because, in their opinion, that would not reveal the real leverage to me… it would only confuse me.

And so they decided to credit-risk weigh the assets, and came up with the Tier 1 Common Capital Ratio.

And that made many in the market feel very much more comfortable with that the banks were quite adequately capitalized.

But one has to adapt, and so I felt that there was a new very interesting Ratio to be found in the market whenever the Leverage Ratio was published. And that was the Tier 1 Common Capital Ratio to the Leverage Ratio Ratio, because that Ratio would represent the Hiding Risks Ratio.

Deutsche Bank reported at the end of 2015 Tier 1 Common Capital Ratio of 11.5% and a Leverage Ratio of 3.6%, and that would signify a 319 percent Hiding Risks Ratio. I am not sure it is the highest… but it is sure high enough to make me very nervous.

Failed bank regulators cuddled up for comfort in the bosom of Her Majesty’s “Why did no one see this coming?”

IEA, I refer to your Discussion Paper No. 65 “Britain’s Baker’s dozen of disasters” and specifically No. 13 “2000-2008: The Gordon Brown bubble”

It starts by quoting HM The Queen at London School of Economics, November 2008 asking with respect to the financial crisis “Why did no one see this coming?”

What a marvelous question, for failed regulators. It allows all of them to hide as a group, avoiding thereby any personal responsibility.

But of course some of us saw it coming! 

In 1999 in an Op-Ed I wrote “the possible Big Bang that scares me the most is the one that could happen the day those genius bank regulators in Basel, playing Gods, manage to introduce a systemic error in the financial system, which will cause its collapse”

In January 2003, in a letter published in the Financial Times I warned: “Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic errors, about to be propagated at modern speeds. Friends, as it is, the world is tough enough.”

And in October 2004, as an Executive Director of the World Bank I formally stated: “We believe 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.”

In 1988, with the Basel Accord, Basel I, bank regulators set a zero percent risk weight for sovereigns and a 100 percent risk weight for the private sector. A zero risk weight for governments that in your face set inflation targets that mean you will be repaid with less worth money, or that mention that in need they will have to raise taxes, is truly a surreal concept. With it, obviously statist regulators implicitly told the world that government bureaucrats make more efficient use of bank credit than the private sector.

And in June 2004, with Basel II, they introduced different risk weights for the private sector. These were 20, 50, 100 and 150 percent, depending on the credit rating. Since the basic capital requirement was 8 percent, that meant that in order to buy a $100 asset, banks had to put down $1.6, $4, $8 or $12 of their own capital, depending on the credit rating.

The fundamental errors committed by the regulators were/are mind-blowing.

Bank capital is to cover for unexpected losses and they designed the capital requirements based on the perceived credit risk losses that were already being cleared for by the banks by mean of risk premiums and size of exposures. 

That caused a double consideration of ex ante perceived credit risk and any risk, even if perfectly perceived, results in wrong actions if excessively considered.

It also ignored the simple fact that the safer something is perceived, by definition, the larger is its potential to deliver an unexpected shock.

In fact regulators regulated the banks without even defining the purpose of the banks, like that of allocating bank credit efficiently to the real economy.

And so that allowed banks to leverage much more their equity on assets perceived as safe than on assets perceived as risky; which allowed banks to earn much higher risk adjusted returns on equity on assets perceived as safe, or made to be perceived as safe, than on assets perceived as risky, like lending to small business and entrepreneurs. And that of course distorted the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. 

It caused the creation of dangerous excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived as safe but that ex post turn out risky, precisely the stuff major bank crises are made of: like AAA rated securities and Greece. This time aggravated by the fact that since the assets were perceived as safe, banks needed to hold very little capital. 

And it introduced a credit risk aversion that impedes our banks to help us live up to our commitment towards the next generations. Risk taking is the oxygen of any development. Without it the economy stalls and falls.

And the distortion this portfolio invariant credit-risk weighted capital requirements produces in the allocation of bank credit, is an issue that is not yet even discussed. The regulators are trying to hide their mistake imposing a not risk weighted leverage ratio but, by still keeping the risk weighted part, the distortion are well alive and kicking. If only in their stress testing of banks they would also look at what is not on the balance sheets but should be there. 

Why do nations fail? When they care more about what they already have than about what they can get! God make us daring!

And no one of the regulators responsible for the mess seems to have been held accountable… in fact most of them seem to have been promoted.

G20, the Financial Stability Board does not know what it is doing, or is simply hiding a monstrous regulatory mistake.

“In Washington in 2008, the G20 committed to fundamental reform of the global financial system. The objectives were to correct the fault lines that lead to the global crisis and to build safer, more resilient sources of finance to serve better the needs of the economy”

That is how FSB on November 14, 2014 introduces its report to the G20 leaders titled “Overview of Progress in the Implementation of the G20 Recommendation for Strengthening the Financial Stability”

And the letter that accompanies it states: “The job of agreeing measures to fix the fault lines that caused the crisis is now substantially complete.” 

But the sad fact is that the report does not even mention what in my opinion constitutes the most important fault line, and in not doing so, makes it also impossible for banks to serve the needs of the economy.

As I see it that "fault line" was the Perceived Credit Risk Weighted Equity Requirements for Banks. Here follows my explanation:

Banks already clear for perceived credit risks (in the numerator) by means of interest rates, size of exposure and other terms of contract.

And so, when regulators cleared for the same perceived risks in the equity (more risk more equity – less risk less equity) they allowed banks to earn much higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to those perceived as “absolutely safe”, than when lending to those perceived as “risky”

The following are some examples of risk weights and leverages based on the original 8% equity requirement and that are indicated in the Basel II approved in June 2004.

Infallible sovereigns: zero percent RW, allowing infinite leverage.

Members of the AAAristocracy: 20 percent RW, allowing a leverage of 62.5 to 1.

Financing of houses: around 25 percent RW, allowing a leverage of 50 to 1

Medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups, and citizens: 100 percent RW, allowing a leverage of 12.5 to 1.

And there is a perfect correlation between the troubled bank assets that caused the crisis, and the presence of ultralow capital requirements.

And this monumental distortion in the allocation of bank credit is not even mentioned.

Either the FSB has not understood the problem, or it is hiding the truth about this horrendous regulatory mistake.

And even from the perspective of medium term stability of banks, these regulations are absolutely useless. That is so since all really serious bank crises never result from excessive exposures to what is perceived as risky, but always from excessive exposures to what has erroneously perceived as “absolutely safe”. And so, if anything one could even argue the equity requirements should be totally the opposite, higher for what is perceived as “absolutely safe” and lower for what is perceived as “risky”. 

And these risk weighted equity requirements are impeding bank credit from reaching where it is most needed and therefore wasting all the liquidity support provided by QEs and similar programs.

Yes regulators will tell you that Basel III has the Leverage Ratio which is not risk-weighted. What they do not understand though is that raising the floor, only increases the pressure of those living close to the roof... namely "the risky".

Bank regulators who as we all have prospered thanks to the risk-taking of the banks of our parents, are now negating that risk taking to our children.

As a consequence our banks are now not financing the risky future, only refinancing the safer past.

Risk taking is the oxygen of development, and these regulators have no right whatsoever to believe with astonishing hubris they can be the risk-managers of the word, and go behind our back, calling it quit, and so making our economy stall and fall.

Conclusion: Basel III has NOT fixed the distortions in the allocation of bank credit. In some ways it has even made it worse. And, to top it up the risk-adverse regulatory monsters also want to go after the insurance sector.

God make us daring!

Comment on BoE´s Sir Jon Cunliffe´s speech, July 17, 2014, on the leverage ratio in bank regulations.

Sir Jon Cunliffe of the Bank of England, Deputy Governor Financial Stability, Member of the Monetary Policy Committee, Member of the Financial Policy Committee, Member of the Prudential Regulatory Authority Board gave a speech on July 17 on the role of the leverage ratio. In it he states: 

“The underlying principle of the Basel 3 risk-weighted capital standards – that a bank’s capital should take account of the riskiness of its assets – remains valid. But it is not enough. Concerns about the vulnerability of risk-weights to ‘model risk’ call for an alternative, simpler lens for measuring bank capital adequacy – one that is not reliant on large numbers of models. 

This is the rationale behind the so-called ‘leverage ratio’ – a simple unweighted ratio of bank’s equity to a measure of their total un-risk-weighted exposures. 

By itself, of course, such a measure would mean banks’ capital was insensitive to risk. For any given level of capital, it would encourage banks to load up on risky assets. 

But alongside the risk-based approach, as an alternative way of measuring capital adequacy, it guards against model risk. This in turn makes the overall capital adequacy framework more robust. 

… bank capital adequacy is subject to different types of risks. It needs to be seen through a variety of lenses. Measuring bank capital in relation to the riskiness of assets guards against banks not taking sufficient account of asset risk. Using a leverage ratio guards against the inescapable weaknesses in banks’ ability to model risk. 

Whether the leverage ratio or the risk weighted capital ratio bites on any individual bank will depend on what are the greatest risks facing that bank” 

And those assertions contain some important impreciseness and problems on which I must comment. 

First “that a bank’s capital should take account of the riskiness of its assets – remains valid… Measuring bank capital in relation to the riskiness of assets guards against banks not taking sufficient account of asset risk” 

Absolutely not so! A banks capital should take account of the risk of the bank, which though related to the risk of its assets, is something quite different from the risk of its assets. For instance a bank that has an overconcentration in some few very absolutely safe assets might be infinitely more risky than a bank that has a great diversified exposure to risky assets. The most unfortunate part of current capital requirements is that they are portfolio invariant. 

Second “a leverage ratio guards against the inescapable weaknesses in banks’ ability to model risk”.

Not just so! Models are based on expected risks, while leverage ratios should cover primarily for unexpected risks, and “model risks”, the risk of models sometimes not being correct, has even a lot of being an expected risk. And so in this respect the leverage ratio is to cover for much more unknowns than model risk.

Third “Whether the leverage ratio or the risk weighted capital ratio bites on any individual bank will depend on what are the greatest risks facing that bank”

Not so! What will bite an individual bank has nothing to do with risks, and all to do with its current capital position. If a bank is under the leverage ratio then that is its binding constraint, and if over it, the risk-weighted capital is.

And here is where I need to express my most serious concern with the leverage ratio, and that is that as it increases the floor of minimum capital, it will intensify the distortions produced by risk-weighing. Do you remember the movie the “Drowning pool” where Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward are pressured against the ceiling by an increasing level of water? Precisely that way!

Conclusion: I want a leverage ratio 6-8% but not in the company of the so odiously distorting risk-weights.

Caveat emptor! Contingent Convertible Capital Instruments CoCos

Contingent Convertible Capital Instruments CoCos, which counts as Additional Tier 1 debt, and which could be forced to convert only because a regulatory change in risk-weights, or in the risk appreciation of some assets by credit rating agencies, or because of bank manipulations is pure lunacy for all… especially for investors.

Could investors sue regulators for forcing them to convert? What responsibilities have regulators on informing investors about the possibilities of conversion?

If getting close to a conversion do banks have an obligation toward investors to sell assets with high risk weights in order to avoid conversion, or can the banks instead take on assets with high risk weights in order to force conversion on investors?

The only cocos that could make some sense, are those based on a leverage ratio (not risk-weighted)…for instance not less than 8 percent.

Basel III, risk based capital requirements, leverage ratio, distortions, and “The Drowning Pool”

I have for years seriously criticized the distortions in the allocation of bank credit to the real economy that the risk based capital requirements of Basel II produce. And now I am often being answered that these distortions have been in much removed because of the introduction in Basel III of the 3 percent leverage ratio, that which is applied on all assets without any risk weighing.

Unfortunately the truth is that could make the distortions even worse, and equally unfortunate, the why of it, is not so easy to explain… and so here I give it another go.

Have you seen “The Drowning Pool”, where Paul Newman and Gail Strickland are locked in a hydrotherapy room, with the water rising to the ceiling? Well think of the capital requirements as the hydrotherapy room, and the leverage ratio as the water level. 

In Basel II, there was a lot of room for banks maneuvering around the risk-weights but, in Basel III, by means of the water level having risen, there is now less room-oxygen for the banks to breathe… and so the more the distortion.

And so Basel III by making the search for breathing space harder will therefore make banks even more loath to give credit to “the risky” those which regulators decided consume more oxygen-capital. Get it?

And of course that is not helped by the fact that, with the introduction of liquidity requirements which is also based on ex ante perceptions of risks, new sources of distortion are being introduced.

Current regulators in the Basel Committee, and in the Financial Stability Board need to be fired!

Bankers are expected to guard the front door from all expected losses entering their business, and this they do by means of interest rates, size of exposures and other terms. Though sometimes one or another banker fails in doing that, in general, as a system, they perform quite well.

But the banker cannot guard the back-door, that of the unexpected losses too, because were he to do so, he would not be able to attend competitively his ordinary business at the front door.

And so it is the regulators’ responsibility to make sure that the back door is sufficiently guarded. Unfortunately, current regulators, explicitly for reasons of simplicity, stupidly decided to guard against unexpected losses, with a wall which height was determined based on the perceptions of expected losses.

And to top it up, also explicitly for reasons of simplicity, they decided And that means that “expected losses” are considered twice, while the “unexpected losses” are ignored.

And that means that the banking system overdoses on perceptions of expected losses, something which make it impossible for banks to allocate credit efficiently in the real economy.

And that means that when some unexpected losses occur, usually in assets previously deemed as safe, the risk of banks not having sufficient capital has dramatically increased.

The leverage ratio, that which is not based on risk-weights, was to partially solve one problem, though of course that of the distortion would remain, as other risk-weighted capital requirements would still be in place.

But the way the Basel Committee seems now proceeding to dilute the leverage ratio, seemingly even introducing risk-weighting for off-balance sheet items, while if something needed to be diluted was the discriminations produced by risk-weights, is evidence that the regulators really do not know what they are doing. And it therefore behooves us to fire them… urgently.

In the hands of self righteous, arrogant, dumb and unsupervised bank regulators, Europe is doomed.

Let there be no doubt. Basel II did the eurozone in, but, Basel III, is fundamentally still a perceived risk-based bank regulatory regime. All its new concoctions, like Leverage Ratio, Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Net Stable Funding Ratio are, admittedly, only backstops, supplements or complements.

And this means that banks will still be allowed to hold much less capital against loans to “The Infallible”, like to sovereigns, the housing sector and the AAAristocracy, than against loans to “The Risky”, like to medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups.

And that means, of course, banks will be making much higher expected risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to The Infallible than when lending to The Risky.

And that means, of course, banks will not lend to the future, only refinance the past.

And that means, of course, Europe will not risk exploring sufficiently the new adventurous bays it needs in order to sustain a movement forward, and to create sturdy jobs for its youth, and will therefore die, gasping for oxygen, in dangerously overpopulated safe havens.

Europe, I cry for you. You have no idea of what you have gotten yourself into. Your banking system has been overtaken by what must be the stupidest risk-averse mentality, incapable of understanding the simple fact that what is perceived, ex ante, as “risky”, has never ever caused a major bank crisis, only what has been erroneously perceived as absolutely safe do that.

Europe, for your own sake, rid yourself of the false Pharisees in the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision and in the Financial Stability Board, as fast as you can!

God make us daring!

January 2015, the generous bank regulators, are going to get clobbered. And no risk-weights mumbo jumbo will save them.

In January 1, 2015, according to the Basel Committee, banks are to disclose their leverage ratio, not based on risk-weighted assets, but simply on total assets, and as of course, the banks should have done all the time.

And at that moment bank regulators who have been the most generous to their banks are going to get clobbered, and no risk-weighting mumbo jumbo is going to save them.

Basel's "Leverage Ratio" expressed as Debt to Equity Ratios (D/E)

Below what leverage ratios (LR) of x percent, in Basel terminology, approximately mean, in terms of normal traditional debt to equity (D/E) ratios, those usually applied to all other economic organizations.

LR of 2 percent = D/E of 49/1

LR of 3 percent = D/E of 32/1

LR of 4 percent = D/E of 24/1

LR of 5 percent = D/E of 19/1

LR of 6 percent = D/E of 16/1

LR of 7 percent = D/E of 13/1

LR of 8 percent = D/E of 11/1

LR of 9 percent = D/E of 10/1

LR of 10 percent = D/E of 9/1

My recommendation: Throw away all risk-weighting and adopt a leverage ratio of from 6 to 9 percent, which should fluctuate in an economic counter-cyclical way.

Will there be a mega bank run January 2015?

On January 1, 2015, the Basel Committee has indicated that banks should report their leverage ratio, not based on risk-weighted assets, but simply on total assets, and as of course, the banks should have done all the time.

And that would mean that a lot of banks which have presented themselves to society with an acceptable 8 /15 to 1 asset to capital ratio will, unless they take precautions, then have show that naked, without risk weighting, their real leverage might well be in the 20/40 to 1 range. 

And that should scare the hell of a market that, day by day, like in Cyprus, is seeing more signs reading “bank creditors, caveat emptor, you won’t be bailed out like before”.

The US banks, thanks to FDIC requiring more capital, are on the way of being able to show the lowest leverages. Most European banks, being more firmly in the hands of the Basel Committee, or vice-versa, seem will not be so lucky.

Go back over the last five years, and you will find innumerable comments, by experts, including regulators, referring to the low leverages of banks, without them having the faintest idea of how the modern Basel II leverages had been construed, and without the faintest idea that current leverages, after risk-weighting, can in no way be compared with the historical leverages based on un-weighted assets. 

At least it looks like the time of funny leverages is soon over.

Comments on Basel Committee's “The regulatory framework: balancing risk sensitivity, simplicity and comparability” of July 8, 2013

Basel Committee for Banking Supervision

Sir,

These are comments made in reference to your July 8, 2013 consultation document “The regulatory framework: balancing risk sensitivity, simplicity and comparability”

I would like to begin by clearly stating that for a long time I have completely objected the capital requirements for banks based on ex ante perceived credit risks. I consider these capital requirements to be totally insane and much responsible for causing the current bank crisis, as well as for impeding us getting out of it.

And to that effect I enclose a short opinion recently published in the Journal of Regulation and Risk - North Asia, Volume V Issue II Summer 2013. The “Mistake” that shall not be named

That said I would also like, just as an example of what I criticize, refer to the following in the document.

“73. For example, in increasing ex ante risk sensitivity and expanding risk coverage, the framework has progressively sought greater alignment of regulatory capital with economic capital. This approach is implicitly premised on the suitability of economic capital as an appropriate measure for regulatory purposes. But the relationship between economic capital and regulatory capital may need reexamination in the light of the recent shift in the focus of regulation and supervision from ensuring the soundness of individual institutions to, additionally, safeguarding the stability of the banking system.”

First, what are you saying? That “safeguarding the stability of the banking system” was not understood to be the role of the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision before? Do those who appointed you really agree with that statement?

Second, your regulatory capital based on ex ante perceived credit risk, even in the case of an individual bank, is an utterly incomplete reflection of economic capital, since it does not consider facts like the size of the exposures, meaning the portfolio diversification/concentration, or the duration of those exposures, for instance the interest rate risk.

And then let me briefly and partially answer some of your specific questions

Q1. Does the current framework, with its reliance on the risk-based capital at its core, appropriately balance the objectives set out in paragraph 29?

No! The core of the current framework, risk-based capital is completely wrong.

For instance, when in 29 you write “These ideas should be assessed against the primary aims of the capital adequacy framework: that is, the capital adequacy framework should…. take into account the effects of capital requirements on banks' risk-taking incentives, eg when faced with regulatory constraints on their capital (and therefore the size of their balance sheet), to seek higher-risk assets as a means of boosting expected returns”, you do not seem to comprehend the real problem.

The fact is that banks, “when faced with regulatory constraints on their capital”, primarily seek assets which have a low capital requirement, in order to boost expected risk-adjusted returns on equity

Q2. Are there other objectives that should be considered in reviewing the international capital adequacy framework?

Yes, like the little matter of the purpose of the banks; like that the capital adequacy framework should not be allowed to distort the bank credit allocation to the real economy. 

Q3. To what extent does the current capital framework strike the right balance between simplicity, comparability and risk sensitivity, given the costs and benefits that greater risk sensitivity brings?

To no degree at all, especially since the “greater risk sensitivity it brings” is only a quite arrogant ex-ante presumption.

Q4. Which of the potential ideas outlined in Section 5 offer the greatest potential benefit in terms of improving the balance between the simplicity, comparability and risk sensitivity of the capital adequacy framework?

In my opinion, a simple leverage ratio of 8 to 10 percent, complemented by a reporting requirement which includes; a report of risk adjusted leverage based on standardized risk-weights, and issued strictly for approximate comparative purposes; and some additional information on its portfolio diversification and duration, and that can be helpful for the market to get a sense of the risk structure of the bank.

The transition to such a reality though would have to be managed with a lot of intelligence in order not to make things worse.

Q5. Are there other ideas and approaches that the Committee should consider?

Yes!

How did Basel I, II and III evolve? How can we make sure that the serious mistakes in them and that I attribute to incestuous group-think within a mutual admiration club, are not repeated?

There is a need for a critical mass of qualified creditors in the market who know they will not be bailed out automatically from a bank problem.

Who authorized the Basel Committee to act as a risk-manager of our banks and the world?

If you want to do it right, you need to work with a whole set of new regulators who have no vested interest in defending what has been done in the past… remember, neither Hollywood nor Bollywood would ever dream of entrusting a Basel III to those responsible for Basel II flop.

Am I to harsh and impolite in my criticism? Considering the suffering and the millions of unemployed youth resulting directly from your faulty regulations, I do not think so.

Sincerely

Per Kurowski

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/

Rockville, Maryland, USA

PS. If you want to download the whole journal from which my opinion was extracted you can go tohttp://www.scribd.com/doc/149858219/Journal-of-Regulation-Risk-North-Asia-Volume-V-Issue-II-Summer-2013

Three Qs and As on our banks

Q. What is the first worst that can happen to our banks, excessive exposures to the risky?

A. No, the “risky” never poses any risk of excessive exposures, The first worst is when something considered as “absolutely safe”, and to which therefore bank exposures could be huge, blows up in their face.

Q. What is then the second worst?

A. That when the first worst happens, the banks would not have the capital needed to cover for the losses.

Q. But, if then regulators, by setting quite decent capital requirements for banks for holding what is perceived as “risky”, but almost nonexistent for exposures to what is perceived as “absolutely safe”, make it more likely that the first worst and the second worst come together… is that not sort of dumb?

A. Yes, indeed, I take it back. The first worst thing that can happen to our banks, are dumb regulators.

Conclusion: Throw out Basel's capital requirements for banks based on perceived risk and use a simple and straightforward leverage ratio of between 8 and 10%

The Basel Committee seems to be drowning in in-house surrealism. Put it out of its misery

Risk weighted capital requirements are insane, since the perceived risks they are based on, are already been cleared for in interest rates, amounts of exposure and other terms. 

And not only am I saying it. Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig recently wrote “the studies that support the Basel III proposals are based on flawed models and their quantitative results are meaningless. For example, they assume that the required return on equity is independent of risk”.

And now the Basel III reformers are introducing a simple, transparent, non-risk based leverage ratio of 3 percent to act as a credible supplementary measure to the risk-based capital requirements.

And they argue they do that to “reinforce the risk-based requirements with a simple, non-risk-based "backstop" measure.” “reinforce”? They’ve got to be joking. "Supplementary" as they say,  perhaps somewhat, though the fact remains that capital requirements will still be based on perceived risk and therefore still favor “The Infallible” those already favored by banks and markets, and discriminate against “The Risky” those already discriminated against by banks and markets.

And read this! “Implementation of the leverage ratio requirement has begun with bank-level reporting to supervisors of the leverage ratio and its components from 1 January 2013, and will proceed with public disclosure starting 1 January 2015.” And which means that before January 1st 2013 we the public, will not have the right to know how really leveraged our banks are.

The Basel Committee seems to be drowning in in-house surrealism, and some ministers or central bankers should show some mercy and put it out of its misery

Why can´t a sequestration begin cutting where it could be most productive?