#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Can regulatory risk aversion affect development?

ChatGPT OpenAI: Can regulatory risk aversion affect development?

Q. There’s risk aversion imbedded in risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to bank systems than what’s perceived or decreed as safe. Can that hinder the development of e.g., developing nations? 

ChatGPT answered:

"Yes, the risk aversion embedded in risk-weighted bank capital/equity requirements can potentially hinder the development of developing nations. This is primarily because risk-weighted capital requirements tend to assign higher risk weights to assets or investments in developing nations compared to those in developed nations.

Risk-weighted capital requirements are designed to ensure that banks hold sufficient capital to absorb potential losses arising from their assets. However, the perception of higher risk associated with developing nations often leads to higher risk weights being assigned to loans and investments in these countries. As a result, banks may be required to hold more capital against their exposures to developing nations, making it more expensive for them to finance projects or provide loans in those countries.

This higher cost of capital can deter banks from extending credit to businesses and individuals in developing nations, limiting access to financing and impeding economic growth and development. It can also lead to a reduced flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) into these countries, as investors may view the higher capital requirements as an additional barrier to entry.

Furthermore, the perception of higher risk can create a negative cycle where the lack of access to affordable financing hampers investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship in developing nations. This, in turn, may slow down economic growth and limit opportunities for job creation and poverty reduction.

To address this issue, policymakers and international organizations have recognized the need to strike a balance between prudential regulation and the promotion of economic development. Efforts have been made to refine risk assessment methodologies and provide more nuanced risk weightings that reflect the specific characteristics of developing nations. Additionally, initiatives such as the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA) and various regional development banks aim to provide concessional financing and technical assistance to support development projects in these countries.

Overall, while risk-weighted capital requirements play an important role in maintaining the stability of the banking system, it is crucial to ensure that they do not inadvertently hinder the development of developing nations. Striking the right balance between risk management and supporting economic growth is a complex challenge that requires ongoing attention and cooperation between regulators, policymakers, and international organizations."

Thanks!

"You're welcome! If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to ask. Happy to assist!:

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI - ChatGPT.

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT – OpenAI on bank regulations

My comment on this in 2003 at the World Bank: "Risk aversion comes at a cost - a cost that might be acceptable for developed and industrialized countries but that might be too high for poor and developing ones. In this respect the World Bank has the responsibility of helping developing countries to strike the right balance between risks and growth possibilities."

Comment: How long can the experts on development ignore this and still be considered experts?

https://financefordevelopment.blogspot.com/2023/05/chatgpt-openai-can-regulatory-risk.html

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.

What impact on development could the asymmetry between NGOs have?

Is the asymmetry between the developing and the developed countries made worse because of the asymmetry between the weak and often subordinated NGO’s from developing countries and the strong and often in command NGO’s from the developed countries?

I say this because I have often found it so hard for activists from developing countries to understand that the stability they look for in their natural desire to keep all that they have gained under their belt, has nothing to do with the risk-taking a developing country needs in order to place at least something under its belt.

I have also often found that some agendas of the NGOs of developed countries, though most often certainly representing worthy causes, not only differ but can also turn into outright distractions from the more practical development agendas that NGOs from developing countries would wish to pursue, if on their own.

There are a lot of discussions about much needed governance reforms at the International Finance Institutions, the IFIs. Please remember that those reforms might have to include their relations with the NGOs too.

My Voice and Noise on the financial sector during the spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, April 2008

Risk is the oxygen of development!
It is absurd to believe that the US and other countries would have reached development without bank failures. When the Basel Committee imposes on the banks minimum capital requirements based solely on default risks, this signifies putting a tax on risk-taking, something which in itself carries serious risks. The real risk is not banks defaulting; the real risk is banks not helping the society in its growth and development. Not having a hangover (bank-crisis) might just be the result of not going to the party!

We need to stop focusing solely on the hangovers and begin measuring the results of the whole cycle, party and hangover, boom and bust! The South Korean boom that went bust in 1997-1998 seems to have been much more productive for South Korea than what the current boom-bust cycle seems to have been for the United States.

All over the world there is more than sufficient evidence that taxing risks has only stimulated the financing of anything that can be construed as risk free, like public sector and securitized consumer financing; and penalized the finance of more risky ventures like decent job creation. Is it time for capital requirements based on units of default risk per decent job created?

When is the World Bank as a development bank to speak up on this issue on which they have been silent in the name of “harmonization” with the IMF?

When are we to stop digging in the hole we’re in?
The detonator of our current financial turmoil were the badly awarded mortgages to the subprime sector and that morphed into prime rated securities with the help of the credit rating agencies appointed as risk surveyors for the world by the bank regulators.

If we survive this one and since it is “human to err” we know that if we keep empowering the credit rating agencies to direct the financial flows in the world, it is certain that at some time in the future we will follow them over even more dangerous precipices.

Note: I have just read the Financial Stability Forum brotherhood’s report on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience and while including some very common sense recommendations with respect to better liquidity management and “reliable operational infrastructure”; and some spirited words about more supervision and oversight (the blind leading the blind); with respect to the concerns expressed above, bottom line is that they recommend we should deepen the taxes on risks and make certain that the credit rating agencies behave better and get to be more knowledgeable… so that we are more willing to follow them where we, sooner or later, do not and should not want to go.

Do micro-credit institutions make too much use of “predatory ratings”?

Any group of debtors that is charged a higher interest rate because it is considered a higher credit risk is composed by those spending their money servicing a debt that they will finally default on, and those who should have in fact deserved a lower interest rate. Are there any real winners among them?

Who is out there talking about that the extensive use of ratings signifies something like a regressive tax for the poor? Who is out there informing the poorly rated about how very dearly they are paying for their loans? Who is out there analyzing the murdering impact that credit ratings have in chipping away at the minimum levels of solidarity that any society needs to keeps itself a society?

If there is a minimum of things that needs to be done in the world of micro credits that is to focus more on transparent system of incentives that: 1. Stimulates and rewards good group behavior and returns to the compliant borrowers some of the “extraordinary” margins earned. 2. Spreads out the costs of those who cannot make it over a much wider group of debtors.

And, by the way, this applies just the same to the financing of mortgages to the subprime sector.

Inclusive financial systems, though generally good, could also be dangerous for the poor

If you have to pay a higher interest rate than what the average borrower pays, you should be extra careful with what you borrow for, as this could otherwise set you back even more.

For instance, if you want to buy a house that has a market value of $100.000 and have the $12.000 for a down-payment, you need a credit for the balance of $88.000. Let’s suppose that you could for that purpose access a 15 years fixed rate mortgage but, because you are considered a subprime risk, your lender requires a very high interest rate of 11 percent, which would require you to pay 1.000 dollars per month.

Had you qualified as a good risk and therefore could have access to for instance a rate of only 6 percent, then your $1.000 monthly sacrifice for the next 15 years would, in present value terms, be worth $118.500. From this we can deduct that if you bought your house under current conditions, at 11 percent, and did not wait until you could access to a 6 percent rate, then you will in fact have paid $130.500 for the house ($12.000+$118.500).

This is a sad truth often forgotten. Of course broad-based and inclusive financial systems can significantly aid financial development, reduce poverty, and expand economic opportunity in developing countries… but sometimes their embrace can also be a bit too rough for many of the poor.

Every time anyone pays a rate higher than the risk-free rate in order to purchase goods or services he is in fact accepting paying a higher price for these and which is of course not the surest way to get out from poverty. If anyone needs to be made aware of this it is the poor in the world.

Many subprime mortgage borrowers in the US are currently suffering from too much inclusiveness and will be made poorer as a result. They harbor no doubts on that they would have been much better of had they been excluded, and there are important lessons to be learned from that.

The World Bank, CGAP and other who share the mission of fighting poverty, after so many years of focusing almost exclusively on the access to finance and the stability of the financial system, need to pause, take a breather, and completely rebalance their approach to these issues.

As a bare minimum we need real proof that these programs have indeed reduced poverty in a sustainable way and not just opened up new opportunities for financiers. As a bare minimum “Financial education of the poor” needs to appear among the strategic priorities…currently it does not!

This has not only to do about guaranteeing that the interest rates are reasonable but also with the fact that even taking on debt at reasonable rates might be extremely unreasonable.

Personally I feel there are too many bankers and too few debtors (perhaps none) included in the above programs, and that is a guaranteed way to introduce bias.

For countries to develop... please... let them learn to bike... on their own

The following is extracted from my Voice and Noise. It reflects what I said to my colleagues at the World Bank Executive Board while discussing in 2004 the issue whether developing countries should be allowed to use more their own country systems.

Intro: Whether to let the countries learn and develop on their own in their own way and assisting them by freely giving some of the very scarce resources or whether to impose some conditions on how they are to manage these resources is one of the most difficult balancing acts of any development policy.

There must be thousands of examples of how development funds have been squandered to no avail by bad governments and crooked politicians, and certainly there are thousand of examples of how good-intentioned agencies have, in a quite similar and yet opposite way, squandered these scarce funds by imposing absolutely misplaced rules and conditions.

As I never believed that you could create good artists by having students practice painting by numbers, this little spot number 17 blue, and as those wanting to impose more and ever stricter conditions on the borrower were in the clear majority, my devil’s advocate instincts and my normal tendency of siding with the weaker inspired me to take a very strong position in favor of allowing for a more frequent use of the countries’ own systems... and so... please...

Let them bike

Friends, listening to your exhaustive list of concerns [about how the World Bank could best assist countries in their development] I was reminded of the moments when I had to teach my daughters how to ride their bikes: I heard their mother’s anxious calls in the background; I felt my own nervousness; nonetheless, I just knew I had to let them go.

One could find and read thousands of manuals about how to put a bike together safely; about all the safety implements a kid should wear, such as helmet and wrist-guards; about all the precautions he or she needs to take, not going downhill or out on the main road; but nowhere can you find even a single manual that clearly and exactly instructs you how to learn to ride a bike. Left leg up, right leg down! Or was it right leg up first?

We need to understand that development is a bit like learning how to ride a bike and, at the end of the day it is something that must be done on one’s own. In fact, no matter how much we could help in the preparations, we will not stand a chance to achieve lasting results if we are not willing or do not know how to let them go.

It is not easy to let go, I probably even closed my eyes for fractions of seconds after letting my girls roll away on their bikes, but I let them go and they know how to ride a bike now.

So, my colleagues, in these discussions, not as caring parents but as caring development partners, let us try to act accordingly, letting them go, always remembering that, at the end of the day, countries need to do it on their own. What else could ownership mean?

Of course, anyone might fall trying, but that is exactly the risk we need to be able to take if they are going to achieve real sustainable development results and, if they fall, there is probably nothing more to do than to help them rebuild their confidence so that they can just have another go at it.

Moreover, if you try to hold the bike while they ride it, the bike might not really behave like a bike, and so they might never get the hang of it. What we really should be concerned about is that they have what is most needed at the time of trying: sufficient confidence in themselves. In fact, what unwillingly might be the first victim of all our other secondary concerns is precisely that, their confidence.

So, my colleagues, let them go, again and again and again, learning to ride their bike, and as they believe a bike should be ridden.

I know it is not as easy as it sounds and in fact I would only give someone the freedom to try it on their own whenever he or she convinces me he or she is truly ready for it, in a sufficiently confident way.

.

A B- donor?

Once again I heard in a development forum complains about the volatility of the commitments of donors. Would not rating the donor’s credibility be a good pro bono cause for the Credit Rating Agencies? Perhaps the tax deductibility allowed to funds collected by those donors could also be a function of those ratings.

About prisoners, the old and the sick

About prisoners, the old and the sick

WE READ THAT IN THE United States there are approximately 2.2 million people dedicated to capturing and keeping 2 million prisoners behind bars. Imagine what it can mean for any country to capture even 1% of that market.

Other buoyant markets are those of the elderly care industry, whose demand in developed countries grows as the ratio of the number of young to old decreases. So are those in the long-term care industry, where continuous advances in medicine seem to generate almost infinite demand. 

It is strange then the insufficient attention that developing countries give to these services when negotiating their trade agreements, considering their current and competitive salaries, and that, on the other hand, it does force them to open up to the services sector via banking, insurance, auditing, etc. 

As an example, the economic impact to a poor country of a school that annually graduates a few thousand excellent bilingual nurses, to work around the world or in their own country, could exceed the benefits that a trade agreement would have on its agriculture and manufacturing industry combined. By the way, nurses would cancel their educational credits, perhaps even more easily than economists like me.

Furthermore, given the tensions that occur when millions of people seek to emigrate in any way to the labor markets of developed countries, in order to produce family remittances, it is surprising not to hear that the best way to avoid this illegal immigration, which is often destined in one way or another to care for prisoners, the sick and the elderly, it would be sending this same clientele to developing countries to be cared for. 

A real opening in services would allow poor countries to access sources of sustainable economic growth, while at the same time it would alleviate the pressures that the costs of caring for prisoners, the elderly and the sick exert on the finances of developed countries, to such a degree that They even threaten to make their own economies unsustainable. 

New ideas? No way! Papillon was sent prisoner to Guyana and Australia was founded with exported convicts. There are already European governments that pay in one way or another for the stay of their elderly in places like the Canary Islands, and history is full of examples of those who had to go to other places due to diseases such as tuberculosis.

Translated by Google from El Universal

Regulations as enemies of bank missions

Note: Now 25 years later, when hearing about efforts to regulate cryptocurrencies, something which will clearly dilute the “caveat emptor”, the “buyers beware” principle, again I find reasons to refer to this article.

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's in good faith... sometimes it's only 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 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

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/1998/10/la-regulacion-como-enemigo-de-la-mision.html

Guaranteed - 100% artificial

Several years ago, on a bottle which contained a liquid of dubious quality, I saw a promotional phrase displayed with obvious pride which spelled out “Guaranteed 100% Artificial”. I remember having thought of this slogan, which converted a negative argument into a positive one by a total and shameless acceptance of the it’s failings, as a marketing masterpiece.

However, that was many years ago. Since then, our politicians have provided several examples of the application of this marketing strategy, proving that they have taken its development to new heights. This week, I got the impression that I am being taken for a ride again.

Obviously, something must be done about Venezuela’s foreign debt. The point is, why do we have make such a jolly occasion out of a relatively sad affair, something like joining a funeral procession in New Orleans.

There has been much ado about the development of a new strategy for the management of this debt. Among the incredible advantages we have achieved, through the efforts of our financial magicians, the following have been readily bandied about:

“Above all, the country would manage to establish a yield curve similar to those in other countries which would allow for future issues of debt instruments....”. Splendid! Imagine, we would now have our very own yield curve! Just what the doctor ordered for Venezuela at this moment! There is no doubt in my mind that this would pave the way for new, and possibly indiscriminate, indebtedness.

“In addition, Venezuela would attain savings due to the elimination of the requirement for collateral as is the case for the Brady bonds already issued...”. Part of the external debt was guaranteed by low yielding bonds which in one way or another reduced the country’s net indebtedness. Once these collateral bonds are released, the government is free to use the funds for other “productive” expenses. This means that our national debt will be increased, bringing our net indebtedness up to the level of our gross indebtedness.

The new bond issue, which if successful could top US$ 1 billion, would carry an estimated spread over the US Treasury Bill rate of “only” 3.5%. The former is today approximately 6.5%, which bring the total annual rate to about 10%. This should technically be marvelous for a country “which has in the past had to issue Brady Bonds which carried interest rates with spreads of up to 6.5% over the US Treasury Bill rates”. I’m not about to discuss the cost to the Nation of previous issues. 

May those responsible for these transactions defend themselves. One thing is a 6.5% spread (if this is indeed the case, which I doubt) established for instruments with relatively short maturities. Another, totally different, is tying into a 3.5% spread over a whopping 30-year period. 

The favorite tool used to calculate the “savings” for the Nation is based on analysis of the present value of money, i.e. the value of a dollar today versus the value of a dollar tomorrow. Beware, these are the very same tools that were used to argue Venezuela into the current debt crisis in the first place.

A simple initial calculation would indicate that Venezuela would undertake interest payments over a 30 year period of US$ 1.085 billion in excess of what the United States would pay for a similar US$ 1 billion issue. If we were to extend this calculation to include the cost of accumulated interest at the full 10% per annum, the value of this interest payment differential would explode to US$ 6.368 billion. 

Politicians used to blame international bankers for our high levels of debt. One President even stated that he had been mislead by them. Today international banks are the men in the white hats. On the other hand, bank analysts consider Venezuela worthless one day and worth billions for 30 years the next. Seems like nobody can make up his mind.

We have been told that another advantage of this new financial strategy is that the country’s debt profile will be changed. The new 30-year bond issue will give future budgets some “breathing room”. This means the pressure to reduce government spending and streamline its bureaucracy will have been effectively trashed. I can almost hear the following dialogue in the back rooms of several ministries: “Well boys, enough of the critiques of our sons who lament not being able to go to Disney World or to a University abroad like we did because we have misspent our oil income and, on top of it all, have increased the country’s indebtedness. Let’s change the signals! We’ll postpone the payment of our external debt and lay it square on the backs of our grandchildren. You know what they say, “if it’s the same we are not cheating” (“lo que es igual no es trampa”).

Finally, I wish to make my own contribution, however small and humble, to the science of successful marketing of dubious results. The next time there is a general strike in Venezuela, I suggest the headlines should read: “Bravo! This strike is a healthy indication of social and economic development in Venezuela”. We all know that only well-developed countries such as France, England and the United States can afford a nation-wide strike.