19/6/16: Irish Regulators: Betrayed or Betrayers?..

As I have noted here few weeks ago, Irish Financial Regulator, Central Bank of Ireland and other relevant players had full access to information regarding all contraventions by the Irish banks prior to the Global Financial Crisis. I testified on this matter in a court case in Ireland earlier this year.

Now, belatedly, years after the events took place, Irish media is waking up to the fact that our regulatory authorities have actively participated in creating the conditions that led to the crisis and that have cost lives of people, losses of pensions, savings, homes, health, marriages and so on. And yet, as ever, these regulators and supervisors of the Irish financial system:

1. Remain outside the force of law and beyond the reach of civil lawsuits and damages awards; and
2. Continue to present themselves as competent and able enforcers of regulation capable of preventing and rectifying any future banking crises.

You can read about the latest Irish media 'discoveries' - known previously to all who bothered to look into the system functioning: http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/report-alleges-central-bank-knew-of-fraudulent-transactions-between-anglo-and-ilp-740684.html.

And should you think anything has changed, why here is the so-called 'independent' and 'reformed' Irish Regulator - the Central Bank of Ireland - being silenced by the state organization, the Department of Finance, that is supposed to have no say (except in a consulting role) on regulation of the Irish Financial Services: http://www.independent.ie/business/finance-ignored-central-banks-plea-to-regulate-vulture-funds-34812798.html. 

Please, note: the hedge funds, vulture funds, private equity firms and other shadow banking institutions today constitute a larger share of the financial services markets than traditional banks and lenders.  

Yep. Reforms, new values, vigilance, commitments... we all know they are real, meaningful and... ah, what the hell... it'll be Grand.

8/915: Five Years of Dodd-Frank Act: Two Posts on Reforms Impact

Five years ago, on July 19, 2010, President Barak Obama signed the most far-reaching regulatory reform of the U.S. financial system since the end of the Great Depression – Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The Act has three core pillars:

• enhanced protection of consumers;
• expanded regulatory reach over risk management (including the markets for derivatives), and
• the Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) safeguards.

Given its ambitious scope, the Act was designed to shape American response to the Global Financial Crisis, both in terms of addressing some of the underlying causes, and mitigating future systemic risks. Not surprisingly, the passage of the Act was lauded at the time as a historic moment

My first post, covering Consumer Protection and Derivatives regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is available here.

My second post on Dodd-Frank Act, covering regulation of TBTF banking and financial institutions is available here.

2/8/15: Five Years In: Judging Dodd-Frank Reforms

My blog post for @LearnSignal assessing the first 5 years of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Part 1
http://blog.learnsignal.com/economics/five-years-after-the-dodd-frank-act-part-1-consumer-protection-and-derivatives-regulation

7/5/2014: Simple vs Complex Financial Regulation under Knightian Uncertainty

Bank of England published a very interesting paper on the balance of uncertainty associated with complex vs simplified financial regulation frameworks.

Titled "Taking uncertainty seriously: simplicity versus complexity in financial regulation" the paper was written by a team of researchers and published as Financial Stability Paper No. 28 – May 2014 (link: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/fspapers/fs_paper28.pdf), the study draws distinction between risk and uncertainty, referencing "the psychological literature on heuristics to consider whether and when simpler approaches may outperform more complex methods for modelling and regulating the financial system".

The authors find that:
(i) "simple methods can sometimes dominate more complex modelling approaches for calculating banks’ capital requirements, especially if limited data are available for estimating models or the underlying risks are characterised by fat-tailed distributions";
(ii) "simple indicators often outperformed more complex metrics in predicting individual bank failure during the global financial crisis"; and
(iii) "when combining information from different indicators to predict bank failure, ‘fast-and-frugal’ decision trees can perform comparably to standard, but more information-intensive, regression techniques, while being simpler and easier to communicate".

The authors key starting point is that "financial systems are better
characterised by uncertainty than by risk because they are subject to so many unpredictable factors".

As the result, "simple approaches can usefully complement more complex ones and in certain circumstances less can indeed be more."

The drawback of the simple frameworks and regulatory rules is that they "may be vulnerable to gaming, circumvention and arbitrage. While this may be true, it should be emphasised that a simple approach does not necessarily equate to a singular focus on one variable such as leverage… [in other words, simple might not be quite simplistic] Moreover, given the private rewards at stake, financial market participants are always likely to seek to game financial regulations, however complex they may be. Such arbitrage may be particularly
difficult to identify if the rules are highly complex. By contrast, simpler approaches may facilitate the identification of gaming and thus make it easier to tackle."

Note, the above clearly puts significant weight on enforcement as opposed to pro-active regulating.

"Under complex rules, significant resources are also likely to be directed towards attempts at gaming and the regulatory response to check compliance. This race towards ever greater complexity may lead to wasteful, socially unproductive activity. It also creates bad incentives, with a variety of actors profiting from complexity at the expense of the deployment of economic resources for more productive activity."

The lesson of the recent past is exactly this: "These developments [growing complexity and increased capacity to game the system] may at least partially have contributed to the seeming decline in the economic efficiency of the financial system in developed countries, with the societal costs of running it growing over the past thirty years, arguably without any clear improvement in its ability to serve its productive functions in particular in relation to the successful allocation of an economy’s scarce investment capital (Friedman (2010))."

And the final drop: clarity of simple systems and implied improvement in transparency. "Simple approaches are also likely to have wider benefits by being easier to understand and communicate to key stakeholders. Greater clarity may contribute to superior decision making. For example, if senior management and investors have a better understanding of the risks that financial institutions face, internal governance and market discipline may both improve."

Top line conclusion: "Simple rules are not a panacea, especially in the face of regulatory arbitrage and an ever-changing financial system. But in a world characterised by Knightian uncertainty, tilting the balance away from ever greater complexity and towards simplicity may lead to better outcomes for society."

2/1/2014: Risk, Regulation, Financial Crises: A Panacea Worse than the Disease?

An interesting - both challenging and revealing - piece on 'preventing the future crisis' via http://www.pionline.com/article/20131223/PRINT/312239993/preventing-the-next-financial-crisis-requires-regulatory-changes.

Few points worth commenting on:

Per article: "…Record investment management industry profits as well as record market highs belie the fact we remain truly exposed to complex financial products and services not yet fully restrained since the crisis of 2008." As a logical conclusion to this, of the "three things in particular should concern all of us who are stakeholders in the finance industry as we move into the new year" the first one is:

"…complacency that another crisis can't happen because we have fixed the gaps in regulation."

So far nothing to argue with. Financial innovation (aka a path of increasing complexity) remains the main source of margins uplift in the industry. As long as that is the case, we are going to have less transparency, lower capacity to price risks and, as the result, greater fragility of the system, especially with respect to tail events.

"Nothing could be further from reality and the list of unfinished regulatory business is long. " And the article rolls on with a brief list of reforms and changes yet to take place. Alas, desired or not, these changes are hardly going to bring about any significant change in the way the sector operates. The irony is: the article warns against complacency and then complacently assumes (or even postulates - take your pick) that implementing the list of regulations and reforms supplied will resolve the problem of 'gaps in regulation'.

Really? Now, wait a second. We have a problem of 2 parts:
Part 1: complexity of system is high.
Part 2: complexity of regulation lagging complexity of system.

Matching Part 1 to Part 2 by raising complexity of regulation can only address the problem of risk buildup if and only if Part 1 is independent of Part 2. Otherwise, rising complexity in 2 can lead to rising complexity in 1 and a race in complexity.

Still with me? That is a major problem of the financial system as we know it since at least 19th century. The problem is that rising complexity of regulation is driving financial innovation probably as much as the need for higher margins. The race to match Part 1 and Part 2 above is a loss-making game for regulators, and thus, for economies at large.

If that is at least partially true, the argument should not be about regulations that are yet to be implemented, but rather about which regulations can help reducing complexity (and increase risk management effectiveness) in both Parts 1 and 2. We are still missing that argument, having departed firmly on the path of reasoning that suggests that higher complexity of regulation = higher system ability to absorb shocks. More dangerously, we are seemingly traveling along the line of logic that suggests that higher complexity of regulation = higher ability of system to 'prevent' shocks.


The article goes on to list another major source of risk: "investment management industry overconfidence that it is back in control". Specifically, "We in the industry perceive ourselves as having rectified our inability to see building counterparty, leverage and liquidity risks, masked through Federal Reserve policy by the unorthodox government support of financial markets and the nearly 10,000-point move in the Dow Jones industrial average since the financial crisis."

In reality, "Systemic risks are still building, undetected. Transparency is not increasing and the unwillingness or inability to remove government support in the markets is unprecedented."

Guess what? If you assume that more regulation + more complex regulation = better risk management, you are going to become complacent and you are going to get a false sense of security, control. This brings us back to the first point above.


And now to the non-point point number 3: "Finally, we in the investment management profession seem totally nonchalant about the current state of our existing regulatory system. It is alarmingly outdated, under-resourced and no match for the complexity of markets in the 21st century. To be clear, we are not talking about the new regulations addressing the crisis, rather the basic requirements of our present regulatory structure."

Back to point one above, then, again…


The reason I am commenting on this article is precisely because it embodies the very poor logical reasoning that is leading us to structure regulatory responses to the crisis in such a way that it will assure the emergence of a new crisis. But the real kicker is not that. The real kicker is that the very belief that regulatory system based on matching complexity of regulated services can ever be calibrated well-enough to assure stability of the system is a belief suffering from gross over-extension of faith.

A constant race to increase complexity of the system will lead to system collapse.