« American history - The 4th of July and Financial Bubbles | Main | No Defense to Securities Fraud: "We just did what everyone else was doing..." (updated) »

05 July 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Per Kurowski

Current capital requirements for banks allow for very little bank equity when the credit ratings determine there is very little or no default risk at all, and so the regulators obviously based these requirements on the credit ratings providing correct risk information.

Why? If I was a regulator I would not lose one minute of sleep concerned with the credit ratings being correct, I would only toss and turn about the possibility of these being wrong... and these worries is what I would primarily try to cover for with capital requirements.

As is the current crisis left our banks with no capital simply because they were not required to have any capital against what was ex-ante rated as “not-risky” and “ex-post” turned out to be very risky.

This is an awful crisis, and many are suffering, and so I do think the bank regulators owe us a lot of explanations… and, if they can’t provide us with satisfactory answers, they should be fired and shamed.

PS. Loony bank regulations explained in red and blue! http://bit.ly/mQIHoi

Per Kurowski
A former Executive Director at the World Bank (2002-2004)

Randy

You're almost right....in 1998 Phil Rizzuto was our spokesman for National Finance Corp, a subprime mortgage lender. Scooter's time with Money Store was already over by then, but that's what we all remember him for. Within 12 months NFC crumbled.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Link to Paperblog

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 04/2009
My Photo
| More
Blog powered by TypePad

Categories