UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, against the backdrop of the Credit Risk Weighted Capital Requirements for Banks

The fact is that current bank regulations, by allowing for lower capital requirements, allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to what is perceived as safe than when lending to what is perceived as risky. 

That’s it! Just avoid taking credit risks and you earn more. Not a word about a purpose for banks; like helping to generate jobs for the young or making the planet more sustainable. So we have a banking system that no longer finances the future, it now only refinances the past.

And to top it up, the regulators assigned a risk weight of zero percent to the sovereigns (governments) and of 100 percent to the citizens and private sectors on which that sovereign depends. Which means they believe government bureaucrats can use bank credit more efficiently than SMEs and entrepreneurs.

And of course those regulations completely distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy and, by diminishing the opportunities of the risky to gain access to bank credit, increases existing inequalities. 

And of course those purposeless bank regulations are also dangerously useless. We know that major bank crisis never occur because of excessive financing of what is perceived as risky; they always result from excessive financing of something erroneously believed to be very safe 

And not one iota about this is being discussed in the UN, IMF or elsewhere

Can you imagine if by allowing banks to hold less somewhat less equity when lending to what finances SDGs, we made banks earn higher returns on equity when financing SDGs?  

And so I am sorry, against this backdrop, the announcement of the Sustainable Development Goals, the SDGs, might suggest the term Pollyannaish should henceforth be spelled as PollyUNnaish.

PS. Volkswagen should have rudely reminded UN bureaucrats that there is a real world waiting out there to game their SDGs.

My proposal for this Earth Day 2015.

Stop using purposeless, dangerous and silly credit-risk weighted equity requirements for banks, those which allow banks to earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to those perceived as safe than when lending to "the risky".

Purposeless: because major bank crises never ever result from excessive exposures to what is perceived as “risky” but always from excessive exposures to what was erroneously perceived as “absolutely safe”. 

Dangerous: because that completely distorts the allocation of bank credit to the real economy.

Silly: because why on earth should we taxpayers lend our support to banks if their only goal is to act as safe mattresses to stash away money in. Better to build a super-safe storage facility then.

Begin using more purposeful potential of planet-earth sustainability, job generation and poverty reduction weighted equity requirements for banks.

That way our banks will earn their highest risk adjusted returns on their equity when financing what is deemed useful for the society.

That way it makes sense for us taxpayers to lend our banks the support they need, in order for these to take the astute risks we need for the world to move forward in a sustainable way generating jobs and poverty reduction.

Who shall you tell about this proposal? All bank regulators starting by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision and the Financial Stability Board; and to multinational entities such as the UN, IMF, and World Bank.

If they do not listen to you, at least force them to try to justify why they are supporting current credit-risk weighted equity requirements. These only impede the access to bank credit of "the risky", thereby killing opportunities and increasing inequalities.

On the voice of the indigenous

Just to be perfectly clear about it, I do not feel less indigenous to this planet than anybody else.

And I sure hope and expect that the World Bank will “listen with heart and soul” to my voice too.

At the UN 192 countries got it wrong

192 countries got together for the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development and, in their final communiqué, among the causes of the crisis they say “major failures in financial regulation, supervision, and monitoring of the financial sector, and inadequate surveillance and early warning… compounded by over-reliance on market self-regulation, overall lack of transparency, financial integrity and irresponsible behavior, have led to excessive risk-taking, unsustainably high asset prices, irresponsible leveraging, and high levels of consumption fuelled by easy credit and inflated asset prices.”

How can 192 countries get it so wrong? Yes it is true that assets reached unsustainably high prices and yes it is true there were high levels of consumption fuelled by easy credit and inflated asset prices but it is absolutely false that there was excessive risk-taking or autonomously created irresponsible leverage.

The markets, over just a couple of years channeled two trillions of dollars (perhaps more than what has been lent by the Word Bank and the IMF ever since their creation) to finance houses in the US through securities rated AAA and this would much better classify more as misguided excessive risk-aversion.

And the high real leverage of the banks was foremost a direct the consequences of the regulatory innovation of the minimum capital requirements for the banks based on risks that emanated from the Basel Committee. For instance the regulations authorized an outrageous 62.5 to 1 leverage for when banks lent to corporations rated AAA to AA-.

Nor did the conference say a word about how these minimum capital requirements by which the regulators arbitrarily intervened in the market mechanism of allocating risks, created a de-facto subsidy for what can dress itself up as low risk and a de-facto tax on whatever contains more risk, such as the risks normally present in development.