US Congress, you are the legislators, so who of you ordered the banks in the home of the brave to become credit risk adverse?
Fact: Banks give larger loans, charging lower interest rates and allowing for leaner terms to those perceived as absolutely safe, than when lending to those perceived as risky. And that so much, that your Mark Twain described bankers as those who lend you the umbrella when the sun shines but want it back as soon as it seems it might rain.
Fact: Your regulators now allow banks to hold much less capital for what from a credit risk perspective is perceived as “absolutely safe” than against what is perceived as “risky”.
Fact: And that means banks can leverage their equity much more when lending to those perceived as “absolutely safe” than when lending to those perceived as “risky”.
Fact: And that means banks will earn much higher expected risk adjusted returns on their equity when lending to those perceived as “absolutely safe” than when lending to those perceived as “risky”.
Fact: And that means banks will lend almost exclusively to those perceived as “absolutely safe”, and basically nothing at all to those perceived as “risky”.
Fact: And that seems as far away as can be for the home of the brave which became a great land of the free primarily because of risk-takers… as few risk adverse crossed the ocean to reach its coasts.
And so the question: Who of you US legislators ordered the banks in the home of the brave to become even more risk adverse than what Mark Twain held these to be?
And legislators, if you are somewhat confused by these comments, may I suggest you invite your bank regulators to an open hearing to explain their main scripture, “The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision´s Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions of July 2005” to you.
But then you might really going to be scared.
Posts
