A NEW BREED OF SYSTEMIC ERRORS

(A letter Financial Times did publish)

Sir, except for regulations relative to money laundering, the developing countries have been told to keep the capital markets open and to give free access to all investors, no matter what their intentions are, and no matter for how long or short they intend to stay.

Simultaneously the developed countries have, through the use of credit-rating agencies, imposed restrictions as to what developing countries are allowed to be visited by their banks and investors.

That two-faced Janus syndrome, “you must trust the market while we must distrust it,” has created serious problems, not the least by leveraging the rate differentials between those liked and those rejected by our financial censors. Today, whenever a country loses its investment-grade rating, many investors are prohibited from investing in its debt, effectively curtailing demand for those debt instruments, just when that country might need it the most, just when that country can afford it the least.

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.

Warning about Basel bank regulations

Denying a loan, only seeking to reduce the vulnerability of the financial system, could mean the loss of a unique opportunity to achieve economic growth.

All development involves risks, so its path, by definition, is littered with bankruptcies and tears, framed in the human oscillation of one little step forward and 0.99 little steps back. Perhaps then the best way to regulate is to allow some banks to fail, too, before their problems have calcified or become too great.

Developed countries may never have developed under the yoke of puritanical financial regulation, hence my insistence since 1997 on the need for the development perspective to be considered when regulating. Paraphrasing someone; regulation of the financial system is too important to be left in the hands of regulators and bankers. (See note)

Furthermore, in a world that so much preaches the benefits of the invisible hand of the market, with its millions of mini-regulators, we are surprised that Basel delegates, without question, so much responsibility in the hands of a very few and very fallible credit rating agencies.

Basel has recently come under significant criticism:

The World Bank in its 'Global Financial Development of 2003', referring to the new ways of calculating capital requirements, known as Basel 2, warns both about the risk of making access more expensive and more difficult for developing countries to financial sources, such as favoring international banks to the detriment of domestic banks.

Dr. Alexander Kern, from the University of Cambridge, recently stated at a seminar organized by the G24 (developing countries), that because standards have been developed almost exclusively by European countries (G10), they lack the transparency and legitimacy necessary to accept that they are subject to a quasi-mandatory international legalization process.

The comptroller of the United States Currency, in charge of supervising 55% of the banking system in his country, declared his disagreement with the Basel 2 regulations, and even said that they may simply ignore them.

Friends, it may be worth including in all encyclopedias issued by Basel: 'Warning, excessive banking regulations in Basel can be very detrimental to the development of your country'

Note: “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men” Georges Clemenceau

PS. Sometime later I found out about the bank capital (equity) requirements with risk weights of 0% government and 100% citizens, as if bureaucrats know better what to do with credit than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs. If I was to help finance development in developing (and in developed) countries, the first condition for doing so would be to eliminate such loony regulations.

El Universal

PS. This I wrote while being an Executive Director of the World Bank 2002-2004

PS. Mi first Op-Ed ever June 12, 1997 Puritanism in banking

Some comments made at a Risk Management Workshop for Regulators

Dear Friends,

As I know that some of my comments could expose me to clear and present dangers in the presence of so many regulators, let me start by sincerely congratulating everyone for the quality of this seminar. It has been a very formative and stimulating exercise, and we can already begin to see how Basel II is forcing bank regulators to make a real professional quantum leap. As I see it, you will have a lot of homework in the next years, brushing up on your calculus—almost a career change.

But, my friends, there is so much more to banking than reducing its vulnerability—and that’s where I will start my devil’s advocate intrusion of today.

Regulations and development.

The other side of the coin of a credit that was never granted, in order to reduce the vulnerability of the financial system, could very well be the loss of a unique opportunity for growth. In this sense, I put forward the possibility that the developed countries might not have developed as fast, or even at all, had they been regulated by a Basel.

A wider participation.

In my country, Venezuela, we refer to a complicated issue as a dry hide: when you try to put down one corner, up goes the other. And so, when looking for ways of avoiding a bank crisis, you could be inadvertently slowing development.

As developing sounds to me much more important than avoiding bank failures, I would favor a more balanced approach to regulation. Talleyrand is quoted as saying, “War is much too serious to leave to the generals.” Well, let me stick my head out, proposing that banking regulations are much too important to be left in the hands of regulators and bankers.

Friends, I have been sitting here for most of these five days without being able to detect a single formula or word indicating that growth and credits are also a function of bank regulations. But then again, it could not be any other way. Sorry! There just are no incentives for regulators to think in terms of development, and then the presence of the bankers in the process has, naturally, more to do with their own development. I believe that if something better is going to come out of Basel, a much wider representation of interests is needed.

A wider Scope.

I am convinced that the direct cost of a bank crisis can be exceeded by the costs of an inadequate workout process and the costs coming from the regulatory Puritanism that frequently hits the financial system—as an aftershock.

In this respect, I have the impression that the scope of the regulatory framework is not sufficiently wide, since the final objective of limiting the social costs cannot focus only on the accident itself, but has also to cover the hospitalization and the rehabilitation of the economy. From this perspective, an aggressive bank, always living on the edge of a crisis, would once again perhaps not be that bad, as long as the aggressive bank is adequately foreclosed and any criminal misbehavior adequately punished.

On risks.

In Against the Gods Peter L. Bernstein (John Wiley & Sons, 1996) writes that the boundary between the modern times and the past is the mastery of risk, since for those who believe that everything was in God’s hands, risk management, probability, and statistics, must have seemed quite irrelevant. Today, when seeing so much risk managing, I cannot but speculate on whether we are not leaving out God’s hand, just a little bit too much.

If the path to development is littered with bankruptcies, losses, tears, and tragedies, all framed within the human seesaw of one little step forward, and 0.99 steps back, why do we insist so much on excluding banking systems from capitalizing on the Darwinian benefits to be expected?

There is a thesis that holds that the old agricultural traditions of burning a little each year, thereby getting rid of some of the combustible materials, was much wiser than today’s no burning at all, that only allows for the buildup of more incendiary materials, thereby guaranteeing disaster and scorched earth, when fire finally breaks out, as it does, sooner or later.

Therefore a regulation that regulates less, but is more active and trigger-happy, and treats a bank failure as something normal, as it should be, could be a much more effective regulation. The avoidance of a crisis, by any means, might strangely lead us to the one and only bank, therefore setting us up for the mother of all moral hazards—just to proceed later to the mother of all bank crises.

Knowing that “the larger they are, the harder they fall,” if I were regulator, I would be thinking about a progressive tax on size. But, then again, I am not a regulator, I am just a developer.

Conspiracy?

When we observe that large banks will benefit the most with Basel II, through many risk-mitigation methods not available to the smaller banks which will need to live on with Basel I, and that even the World Bank’s “Global Development Finance 2003” speaks about an “unleveling” of the playing field for domestic banks in favor of international banks active in developing countries, I believe we have the right to ask ourselves about who were the real negotiators in Basel?

Naturally, I assume that the way the small domestic banks in the developing countries will have to deal with these new artificial comparative disadvantages is the way one deals with these issues in the World Trade Organization, namely by requesting safeguards.

Credit Ratings

Finally, just some words about the role of the Credit Rating Agencies. I simply cannot understand how a world that preaches the value of the invisible hand of millions of market agents can then go out and delegate so much regulatory power to a limited number of human and very fallible credit-rating agencies. This sure must be setting us up for the mother of all systemic errors.

The Board As for Executive Directors (such as myself), it would seem that we need to start worrying about the risk of Risk Managers doing a de facto takeover of Boards—here, there, and everywhere. Of course we also have a lot of homework to do, most especially since the devil is in the details, and risk management, as you well know, has a lot of details.

Thank you.

The financial handicap

In horse racing, to try to equalize the chances of victory among the competitors, the handicap system is frequently used, which implies putting a greater weight on the horses, which have shown a greater ability to win. The world of finance is not so benevolent, there more weight is imposed on those who, according to the market, have fewer prospects... present greater risk.

Every morning when a Venezuelan goes out to build his future and that of his Homeland, whether he is a public or private servant, he carries on his shoulders the weight of the country risk (CR) that the financial markets have set that day. That CR, which in principle is calculated based on how much more interest the market requires for Venezuela's external public debt, compared to a similar one in the United States, is currently located at 11% - 14%.

CR affects not only the public sector, but permeates the entire economy. Effectively, we see, for example, a private person who wishes to contract external debt and if he does not have external guarantees to offer, he must pay his normal interest rate, plus the CR. In terms of public service rates, the models indicate the need to reward the investor with a normal profit margin, plus the CR.

A high CR is economic contamination, which covers everything and prevents breathing normally. If Venezuela wants to recover from this economic emphysema, there is no better way than to reduce the CR fast and considerably.

Obviously, CR has many causes and many origins, but the main one is generally related to the ability to service the country's public debt.

In this sense, I guarantee you that if we only manage to spread the amortization of our public debt over a much longer term and guarantee to the market that this is not done to increase it later, due to its relatively modest size, we could quickly achieve that our debt was classified as investment grade, which would reduce the CR considerably.

All it takes is a little will and drive. If the discordant parties insist on preferring to fight suffocated and short of breath, then so be it. However, I am convinced that the oxygen that reducing the CR would produce would benefit both the Government and the opposition, not to mention the rest of our country, which needs and deserves it so much.

Translated from El Universal

.

About the Global Bank Insolvency Initiative

(An informal email sent in 2003 to my then colleagues Executive Directors of the World Bank and which is extracted from my Voice and Noise, 2006)

Dear Friends,

We recently had a technical briefing about the Global Bank Insolvency Initiative. Having had a special interest in this subject for some years, I wish to make some comments.

As I have always seen it, the costs related to a bank crisis are the following three:

The actual direct losses of the banks at the outbreak of the crisis. These are represented by all those existing loans that are irrevocably bad loans and therefore losses without a doubt.

The losses derived from mismanaging the interventions (workout costs). These include, for example, losses derived from not allowing some of the existing bad loans the time to work themselves out of their problems. They also include all the extraordinary legal expenses generated by any bank intervention in which regulators in charge want to make sure that they themselves are not exposed to any risk at all.

The long-term losses to the economy resulting from the “Financial Regulatory Puritanism,” that tends to follow in the wake of a bank crisis as thousands of growth opportunities are not financed because of the attitude “we need to avoid a new bank crisis at any cost.”

For the sake of the argument, I have hypothesized that each of these individual costs represents approximately a third of the total cost. Actually, having experienced a bank crisis at very close range, I am convinced that the first of the three above costs is the smallest ... but I guess that might be just too politically incorrect to pursue further at this moment.

In this respect, it is clear that any initiative that aims to reduce the workout costs of bank insolvency is always welcome and in fact the current draft contains many well-argued and interesting comments, which bodes well for its final findings and suggestions.

That said, the scope of the initiative might be somewhat limited and outdated, making it difficult to realize its full potential benefits. There is also the danger that an excessive regulatory bias will taint its findings.


Traditional financial systems, represented by many small local banks dedicated to very basic and standard commercial credits, and subject to normally quite lax local regulation and supervision, are mostly extinct.

They are being replaced by a system with fewer and bigger global bank conglomerates governed by a global Basel-inspired regulatory framework and they operate frequently by transforming the economic realities of their portfolios through mechanisms and instruments (derivatives) that are hard to understand even for savvy financial experts.

In this respect I believe that instead of dedicating scarce resources to what in some ways could be deemed to be financial archaeology, we should confront the new market realities head on, making them an explicit objective of this global initiative. For instance, what on earth is a small country to do if an international bank that has 30% of the local bank deposits goes belly up?

We all know that the financial sector, besides having to provide security for its depositors, needs also to contribute toward economic growth and social justice, by providing efficient financial intermediation and equal opportunities of access to capital. Unfortunately, both these last two objectives seem to have been relegated to a very distant plane, as the whole debate has been captured by regulators that seem only to worry about avoiding a bank crisis. Unfortunately, it seems that the initiative, by relying exclusively on professionals related to banking supervision, does little to break out from this incestuous trap. By the way if you want to see about conflict of interest, then read the section “Legal protection of banking authorities and their staff.” It relates exactly to those wide blanket indemnities that we so much criticize elsewhere.

And so, friends, I see this Global Bank Insolvency Initiative as a splendid opportunity to broaden the debate about the world’s financial systems and create the much needed checks and balances to Basel. However, nothing will come out of it if we just delegate everything to the hands of the usual suspects. By the way, and I will say it over and over again, in terms of this debate, we, the World Bank, should constitute the de facto check and balance on the International Monetary Fund. That is a role we should not be allowed to ignore—especially in the name of harmonization.