Monday 27 February 2012

Basel Accords - Something somewhere went terribly wrong!


“German regulators seized the ailing Herstatt and forced it to liquidate on June 26, 1974. The same day, other banks had released Deutsch Mark payments to Herstatt, which was supposed to exchange those payments for US dollars that would then be sent to New York. Regulators seized the bank after it received its DM payments, but before the US dollars could be delivered. The time zone difference meant that the banks sending the money never received their US dollars.”

Business Pundit, May 7, 2009

This failure has special place in the history of banking regulation, as the following debates led to introduction of new international regulation. This included well known Basel Capital Accords introduced in 1988, which has mainly focused on banks’ credit risk management, by setting risk-weighted minimum capital requirements. Unfortunately, bank regulators seem to have failed to discipline banks.

OECD analysis shows a significant decline in risk-weighted assets to total assets ratio over time. Historical development of the ratio of 15 largest banks has declined from nearly 70% in 1990 to 35% just before the financial crisis. Systemically important banks started moving to unconventional business practices, which suggests that risk-weighted system of calculation encourages banks to design instruments for bypassing the regulatory regime.

Commerzbank is to swap junior debt for shares to boost core capital by €1bn and take the German bank closer to meeting European regulators’ demands to shore up its balance sheet.”

Financial Times, February 23, 2012


By engaging in shadow-banking and other unconventional banking activities, banks seem to forget about their core function, which is prudential lending to credit-worthy enterprises and households. The following table shows the percentage ratio of selected banks' loans to their total assets.

Since Basel accords were implemented in 1992, the percentage ratio of bank loans to the total assets in decline gradually throughout past 20 years, causing negative consequences for economic output.

As banks main profit margin is derived from securitisation of loans, they failed to devote adequate attention to prudential underwriting (credit risk assessments) of individual loans. It looks like capital requirements, which are based on risk-weighted assets could contribute to further incentives for financial engineers to bypass the regulatory requirements.


Tuesday 21 February 2012

Back to the Stable Point or Transition into a New System?


“Complex dynamical systems, ranging from ecosystems to financial markets and the climate, can have tipping points at which a sudden shift to a contrasting dynamical regime may occur.”

This is a quote from Marten Scheffer’s research paper on the early-warning signals for critical transition.
Even though financial regulation is not that dynamic, but rather slow to react to the changes in the financial world, it still reflects (and sometimes forces) the dynamics in the financial sector. Could we then historically compare financial regulation to an unstable swinging boat, which sometimes comes to a tipping point and (with a minor disturbance like wave) can easily turn over?

In this case waves would be the financial and economic crises that seem to occur every decade and swing the boat of financial regulation.
The crisis in 1980 seemed to have pushed the boat to its tipping point, and the disturbance of Reagan and Thatcher (driven by Chicago Business School economists), has turned the regulatory system by 180 degrees.

“In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
This was in Reagan’s inauguration speech in 1981.



The following system of liberal economy was quite resilient, now however, it seems to be it its tipping point where it could either go back to its stable point, or transit into a new system with a new point of stability.

Monday 6 February 2012

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?




"Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" is the commonly known question that would confuse not only a kid, but even an adult. This causality dilemma could be applied in financial market by asking the question: whether financial innovations cause the increase in regulation or are the result of the restrictions imposed by the increased regulation?

One of the most popular topics in the financial news these days is the regulation of the financial (particular banking) sector. The regulation often involves applying restrictions on use of different types of financial innovations (as these are often blamed for causing the recent financial crisis). However, could these restrictions cause further increase in innovations in the financial sector?

According to Edward J. Kane, innovation “…is the act of putting an invention into practice”. In an unregulated sector the use of invention is usually justified by its technical productivity. However, in the regulated sector, implementation of technical invention can be justified by its ­productivity in regulatory avoidance. One of the greatest examples is the electronic funds transfer system (EFT). Beside its productivity gains of substituting (or replacing) cash and cheques, this was mainly driven by avoidance of heavy regulation of cheques.

There is some controversion in the academic literature about the role of circumventive innovation, which makes it harder to answer the initial question of this financial dilemma. However, no matter what comes first, the process of regulation→ regulatee avoidance→ and the following re-regulation is a constant battle between political and market forces, which is hardly ever going to achieve any stationary equilibrium (Kane 1981).