LyrArc Article Gist
Sheila Bair, former head of the U.S. FDIC, points out flaws in the rules for capital adequacy ratios and risk weighted assets which allow banks to increase their capital adequacy ratios. The ratios show the financial strength of the banks and their ability to absorb losses, which makes their accurate calculation very important for the safety of the U.S. banking system, especially with large "too big to fail" banks. Bair says the 2013 U.S. Fed stress tests showed Bank of America as having a capital adequacy ratio of 11.4%, when it should actually be 7.8% without the risk weighted adjustment. The mortgage banking crisis showed how the risk wieighting can be flawed and give a distorted representation of the acutal risks facing the banks in its assets. For Morgan Stanley the 2013 stress tess by the U.S. Fed showed the capital adequacy ratio at 14%, taking out the risk weighting adjustment this drops to 7%. Bair says its not the idea of risk weighting that is the problem, but the way it is applied- for example considering sovereign government bonds in the eurozone as zero risk, or that only 20% of the accounting value of debt one banks buys from another bank is to be taken into account in setting the ratio. Go back to the drawing board she says, it makes no sense that Citibank debt be shown as having one fifth risk of IBM's. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Stockman was Budget Director under President Reagan and known for his prodigous grasp of statistics in the national budget. Here he takes on what he describes as disproportionately large and destructive banking system for the U.S. economy, which he says the nation desperately needs less of. He supports the small tax of 0.15% of the debts other than deposits of financial conglomerates. His words are some of the strongest yet to come from one of the most prominent people on Reagan's economic team about how the nation's banking system has beome unproductive in supporting economic activity which is its reason for existence. The destructive effects on social cohesion and the middle class is emphasized. He says for years the Fed has run an insanely loose monetary policy that has encouraged this behaviour and socially detrimental profit seeking by the banks and other companies. He sees the big banks as dangerous institutions in today's economy engaged in a bull market culture which believes in entitlement and profitseeking behaviours regardless of its detrimental nature for the national economy. The recent profits of the banks in 2009 and the resulting bonuses are a result of the Fed's easy money policy and bank's gambling at the Fed's monetary casino as he puts it, with money obtained at little cost from Fed-controlled money markets. This article helps to eliminate the distorted perspective in today's climate that paints criticism of splitting up the banks, or otherwise restricting banks in engaging in proprietary trading and risky behaviours, as government interference. As Stockman puts it these banks are already in some sense wards of the state and not private enterprises and this issue is not relevant. The question now is how to set things right and this involves possible solutions such splitting up banks that are too big to fail, restricting risky behaviours and preventing proprietary trading, and other actions as unusual steps for unusual times to get things working back to normal. In other times Stockman would not have said this in an op-ed piece if this were not so....