My tweets on what the coronavirus should inspire in the USA

Coronavirus inspires:

Immediate elimination of all US health sector discrimination in price, access or quality, between insured and uninsured

As is all get the short end of the stick of non-transparent deals between insurance companies and health sectors

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2009/06/but-there-is-minimum-minimorum-reform.html

The elimination of risk weighted bank capital requirements that so dangerously distort allocation of credit in favor of sovereign and “the safer”, thereby disfavoring “the risky”, the always so much needed, and so much credit needing, SMEs / entrepreneurs

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2019/07/risk-weights-are-to-access-to-credit.html

It marks a beautiful opportunity to introduce an unconditional universal basic income UBI, a citizens’ dividend, that could be funded with high carbon taxes and a tax on the advertising revenues derived from exploiting the citizens’ personal data.

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

Bank regulators behave like the scarer employed at the energy-producing factory Monsters, Inc.

The idea of requiring banks to hold less capital (equity) against what is perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, like sovereigns, the AAArisktocracy and residential houses, than against what is perceived as risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, is absolutely cuckoo.

That means that when banks try to maximize their risk adjusted return on equity they can multiply (leverage) many times more the perceived net risk adjusted margins received from “the safe” than those received from “the risky”. As a result clearly, sooner or later, the safe are going to get too much bank credit (causing financial instability) and the risky have, immediately, less access to it (causing a weakening of the real economy). 

Anyone who can as regulators did in Basel II, assign a 20% risk weight to what is AAA rated, and to which therefore dangerously excessive exposures could be created, and 150% to what is made so innocuous to our banking systems by being rated below BB-, always reminds me of those in Monsters, Inc. who run scared of the children. I wish they stopped finding energy in the screams of SMEs and start using their laughter instead.

“We need a people’s Fed”. Yes, we sure do! Assigning 0% risk weight to the sovereign and 100% to any unrated citizen is pure statist ideology driven discrimination in favor of government bureaucrats and against the people. But perhaps the activists depicted are not into that kind of arguments. 

PS. Those in Monsters Inc. finally figured it out. Our bank regulators in the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board have yet to do so, even 10 years after that 2008 crisis, which was caused exclusively by excessive exposures to what was perceived, decreed of concocted as safe, like AAA rated securities and loans to sovereigns like Greece 😩

President Trump, here is a conflict of interest on which many would appreciate you acted on in your own future self-interest.

President Trump. 

I am not an American, so I did not vote. But had I been I must confess I would most likely have voted for the Gary Johnson escape-valve. Congrats anyhow!

Mr. President, you have all your life been an entrepreneur, of one sort or another. As such we could easily presume you have quite often needed to have access to bank credit. Once you are back to civil life in some years, I also assume you would like to reassume your life as entrepreneur, since once one, forever one, and therefore to again have access to bank credit.

Now President Trump, you might not be much aware of it, few really are, and there are of course those interested in it not to be known, or at least not understood but, since 1988, with the Basel Accord, for purposes of determining how much capital banks should hold, the risk weighted for ordinary citizen borrowers was set at 100%, while if it was the central government doing the borrower, then the risk weight was 0%. Yes, you read right… 0%!

That has introduced a disastrous discrimination against all SMEs, start-ups and entrepreneurs when accessing bank credit. The risk aversion that regulation signifies banks no longer finance the riskier future our children need to be financed, they mostly just refinance the “safer” past and present.

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” John A Shedd, 1850-1926

To top it up, regulators have not been able to realize that all this does not make the banking sector any safer. All major bank crises have only resulted from unexpected events, criminal behavior or excessive exposures to what ex ante was perceived as very safe but that ex post turned out very risky. No major bank crises ever was the result of excessive exposures to something ex ante perceived risky.

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

So President Trump, please help America, and the rest of the world ,to banish forever this dangerous nonsense of the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks.

I have tried to inform, for instance your Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB and so many others about this, but they have not been interested. You as an Entrepreneur President do surely stand a better chance to catch their attentions.

PS. When it comes to bank regulations that could destroy the economy of your country, is that not also an issue for Homeland Security?

PS. What poses a bigger threat to American jobs, Mexicans, Canadians or robots?

My number umpteenth effort to explain to XXX the very bad of current bank regulations.

A “risky asset” yields more, let us say 15%.

A “safe asset” yields less, let us say 5%.

And those yields would be deemed by the market as equal risk adjusted yields.

And market participants would buy those assets according to their needs and risk appetites.

But then came the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision with its risk weighted capital requirements for banks, more risk more equity – less risk less equity, and that completely distorted the allocation of bank credit.

Because now banks could leverage their equity more with safe assets and thereby obtain higher risk adjusted returns on safe assets than with risky assets.

As a result the overall market demand for safe assets increased, and that of risky assets decreased. That “risky asset” yielding 15% before, might now have to yield 16% or more. That “safe asset” yielding 5% before, might now just yield 4% or less.

Is this good? Of course not! Regulators, probably without even understanding what they were doing, altered the free market’s risk assessments; causing dangerous overpopulation of safe havens; and, for the real economy, equally dangerous under-exploration of the risky bays where SMEs and entrepreneurs usually reside. 

The net result of it is:

Crises, like that of 2007-08, resulting from excessive exposures to what was perceived, decreed or concocted as safe, like AAA rated securities and loans to sovereigns (Greece)

Stagnation, resulting from all the stimulus, like that of QEs, not flowing freely to where they are most needed, but only populating more and more the remaining safe havens.

In other words this damn piece of regulation has our banks no longer financing the riskier future but only refinancing the safer past; and so we are doomed to doom and gloom, and to run out of safe havens.

Of course, having set the risk weight for loans to sovereigns at 0% and to We the People, the regulators also introduced, through the backdoor in 1988, a powerful pro-statism tool.

The distortions are not even acknowledged by the regulators, much less discussed.

God help needing pensioners and job seeking youth! God help us all!

PS. If you have understood this and want more details on the greatest regulatory faux pas in history you might want to read the following more extensive aide memoire.

PS. Here are some of my past explanations for dummies.

PS. Today 50% of my constituency, my grandchildren, gets to be 5 years old.

The solutions I offer are ignored. Might it be because these provide too little business to expertize and redistribution profiteers?

Before the 2007-08 crisis there was some economic growth resulting from a big expansion of credit, which was fed by some very low capital requirements to banks and that allowed these to, in some cases, leverage their equity over 50 to 1.

Then disaster struck, as a consequence of excessive exposures to what had very little capital requirements, like loans to sovereigns (Greece), investments in AAA rated securities and the financing of houses. 

In panic, floods of money, for instance by means of QEs, were poured over the economies, with little results to show for it, and now, the most important world economies, are stuck. Any additional stimuli, be it by means of public borrowing for infrastructure projects, QEs or low or negative interest rates will only complicate matters much more... like for pension plans.

The truth is that trying to get strong and sustainable economic growth, while keeping in place credit risk-adverse capital requirements for banks that exclude SMEs and entrepreneurs from fair access to bank credit, is just impossible.

What to do?

1. Very carefully remove the risk-weighted capital requirements for banks that distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy. In order to make sure banks have sufficient capital while adapting, and that credit is not constrained, central banks could offer to purchase some of their bad portfolios, with the understanding that no dividends would be paid until these portfolios had been repurchased by the banks. (See what Chile did)

2. Create new demand (and lessen inequalities), by means of 100% tax-funded Universal Basic Income schemes. One of these could, if funded with carbon taxes, also help with environmental sustainability.

I have been arguing against the risk weighted capital requirements for banks for soon two decades, and I have explained many of its mistakes over and over again. I have yet not been able to obtain one single answer from those responsible, like from the Basel Committee or the Financial Stability Board. Could it be because they have no answers? 

Or could it be that my counter proposals are too straightforward, to simple, and would therefore erode the earnings potential of bank regulators (and consultants), of climate change and inequality fighters, and of the general expertize and redistribution profiteers?

Or is it that I just don’t know what I am talking about? It could be, though I think I can prove I do know by means of somecertifiable early opinions on these issues.

The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision successfully staged a cloaked global statist coup

Supposedly to make our banks safer, in 1988, with the Basel Accord, Basel I, the Basel Committee for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, declared the risk weight of the “safe” sovereign to be zero percent, and that of “risky” not-rated citizens, We the People, to be 100 percent.

That meant banks needed to hold much less or no capital at all, when lending to the sovereign than when lending to citizens; which meant banks could leverage their equity and the support they received from society (taxpayers) much more when lending to the sovereign than when lending to citizens; which meant banks would earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to sovereigns than when lending to citizens; and which meant banks would favor more and more lending to the sovereign over lending to the citizen. And the SMEs and the entrepreneurs basically here represent the “not-rated citizens”.

There could be some discussion on whether lending to sovereigns represent less risk than lending to SMEs and entrepreneurs. I do not believe so. Banks do not create dangerous not diversified excessive exposures to SMEs and entrepreneurs; and, at the end of the day, the sovereign derives all its strength from its citizens. 

But what cannot be discussed is that implicit in these regulations, is the belief that government bureaucrats use bank credit more efficiently than SMEs and entrepreneurs, and that is pure and unabridged dumb runaway statist ideology to me.

For a starter, without this kind of regulatory subsidy, the Greek sovereign would not have been able to obtain so much credit. 

And then, without this kind of regulatory tax on private initiative, Greece will never be able to work itself out of its current predicament.

And the world keeps mum on this!

We must allow our banks to be banks again.