Monday, March 12, 2012

The Cost of Reducing Systemic Risk

by Don Alexander, MBA

Associate, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com 

 

The global financial system is facing a number of especially complex changes and challenges. This uncertain environment has prompted calls to reconsider or weaken financial reform and for it to take a back seat to more immediate concerns, such as sovereign risk, weak global growth and inflation risk.  In this view, financial institutions and regulators are being asked to do too much, too soon.   

 

Jaime Caruna, BIS General Manager addresses some of these issues in a recent speech Building a Resilient Financial System (Speech, Feb.7th).  He notes with the current uncertainty and vulnerabilities makes it all the more important to strengthen global financial institutions and establish a reform agenda to avoid further unexpected strains.  As a result, authorities and banks should move faster and further to create a more robust financial system rather than taking the maximum time to achieve minimum capital strength.  A recovery is based on a stable financial system so that business and households can invest and spend with confidence. 

 

A number of broad principles guide this work.  First, financial stability is about resilience and should be prepared in advance. Second, preserving financial stability involves a wide range of policy areas.  Third, a globalized financial system requires global rules. And fourth, stay focused on the end result, namely a system characterized by less leverage, better liquidity management, sounder incentives, less moral hazard, stronger oversight, and more transparency. With this in mind, the appropriate timetables can be established, and their implementation monitored for unintended consequences.

 

The key challenges in carrying forward this agenda are: (1) implementing what has been agreed, especially with regard to bank capital; (2) designing the right transition given a still weak recovery; (3) completing the regulatory reform agenda, notably in the areas of liquidity standards, resolution regimes, OTC derivatives, and the shadow banking system; and (4) ensuring sound micro- and macro prudential oversight. 

 

Authorities have a challenge for completing the regulatory agenda, establishing macroeconomic stability at a global level, reducing debt back to sustainable levels, normalizing monetary policy and continuing to guide the recovery.  All three elements of policy – fiscal, monetary and prudential – are needed to work together to deliver a strong, sustainable global growth.

 

A question becomes what is the cost of this effort?  The Institute of International Finance, in their recent report The Cumulative Impact on the Global Economy of Changes in the Financial Regulatory Framework (Sept. 2011), suggests that impact of these changes will be a global loss of output of 3.2% GDP through 2020 (assumptions and results differ across countries).  This contrasts to recent BIS and IMF estimates (BIS Macroeconomic Assessment Report 2010 & 2011and IMF WP Macroeconomic Costs of Higher Bank Capital and Liquidity Requirements 2011)suggest the impact is much smaller or a loss of global output of 0.5-0.6% GDP through 2020.  Alternatively, what is the cost of doing nothing?

  

For more on this follow the link: www.bis.org/speeches/sp120208.pdf

 

 

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Historical Data

by Rick Nason, PhD, CFA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

 

We love historical data.  From it we develop frequency distributions, probabilities and severity curves.  With this data we develop projections and calculations of risk.  However the really important historical data is not reliable.  Conditions change.  The economy and our competitors react.  The dynamics change.  Our historical data does not reflect this until it laughs at us in our hubris.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Barbell Strategy

by Rick Nason, PhD, CFA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com 

 

Everyone who has worked in asset / liability management knows what I mean by a barbell strategy.  In simplistic terms, a barbell strategy has a mix of both long term assets as a macro “fixing” of the overall risk of the portfolio, and short term assets to fine tune the hedge of the portfolio.   Thus the asset liability hedging is done by a mixture of long term and short term assets.

 

In our information world, the hedge necessary is keeping up with ideas.  Thus it might be prudent to adopt a barbell strategy.  That is reading a mix of short term items such as a newspaper clipping service, or a series of blogs, and a different mix of longer more thoughtful articles such as books or more extensive journal articles.

 

For the risk manager, information and creativity are truly the most critical elements.  Does your firm have a barbell strategy (or any risk management information strategy for that matter)?

 

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Rethinking Basel III and the Regulation of Derivatives

by Don Alexander, MBA

Associate, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

The imposition of Basel III and the new capital requirements was seen as a way to reduce systemic risk in the financial system.  However, in the haste to implement the proposed regulations a number of flaws have emerged that mask potential risks associated with derivatives.  Paul Atkinson & Adrian Blundell-Wignall, in a recent communique, Basel Regulation Needs to be rethought in the Age of Derivatives (VOXEU, Feb 28th) discuss some of weaknesses of Basel III.

 

The chaos that created the Eurozone debt crisis has pushed the debate on how to fix the banking system to the back burner.  The systemic threat originating from the sovereign debt crisis points for the need for recapitalizing Eurozone banks well before the Basel III timetable. Atkinson and Bludell-Wignall argue the proposed Basel III regulations are overly complicated and desperately out of date. The proposals serve as a short-term patch for a fundamentally flawed system that is overly complex.   

 

The Basel proposals use a risk-weighting system for calculating capital charges that do not fully incorporate over-the-counter derivative exposures that currently exceeds $600 trillion (end 2010).  Banks have unlimited scope to arbitrage the system by reallocating portfolios away from assets with high risk weights to assets with low risk weights, thus saving on capital costs.  The capital charges may actually encourage more risk taking by systematically important institutions and may actually make the financial system more unstable and accident prone. 

 

Bank responses to Basel incentives lead to three major problems: capital charges are portfolio invariant and depend on the borrower’s characteristics and economic environment and not portfolio composition, risk weights act as a system of regulatory taxes and subsidies and create a bias against diversification and encouraging concentration in such hazardous asset classes as US residential real estate, and the minimum capital requirements can be arbitraged downward and create a bias toward leverage.  The distortions caused by the system are often obscured by its complexity and opacity, especially as regards derivatives and accounting for unexpected counterparty credit risk losses.  The current problems with CDS, Greece and the ISDA rulings only make the problems more complicated.     

 

The Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA) (marking unrealized losses to market) allows for the netting of gross exposures across counterparties, but may underestimate bank exposure and ignore positions for calculating the CVA charge due to highly concentrated derivative positions and bilateral netting.  The CVA charge is additive across netted bilateral positions rewarding counterparty concentration. The result is a vast, poorly diversified; highly interconnected banking system with a small capital base and that may under estimate potential risk exposure. 

 

Events such as the US subprime real estate crisis and European sovereign debt crisis may be major problems for borrowers and lenders directly affected, but a resilient, well-capitalized banking system would not allow the crisis to become global.  The Basel system should be replaced with one whose parameters cannot be arbitraged by portfolio reallocation and derivative activity.  Despite Basel III, the current system remains vulnerable to systemic risks created by derivative exposures.

 

For more on this, follow the link:  www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/7672

 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Blogs Versus Articles

by Rick Nason, PhD, CFA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

Writing a blog is something that I generally enjoy.  The whole point of a blog being an idea that is put forward in an informal and top of head manner is fun to write, and fun to think about. 

 

Blogs are a lot more fun to write than a formal article.  In an article the argument is more formal, and as a result it can be come much less fun to think about and to write.  The focus in an article is on exactness, and that takes away from the flexibility, creativity and “in the momentness” of a blog.

 

I also enjoy reading the blogs of others.  Getting a quick snippet of what they are thinking about at the moment is a great way to learn and a great way to stimulate and generate ideas of your own.

 

It is too bad that risk management has become such a formal process at many companies.  I believe it takes away the creativity and the flexibility of mind that you see in blogs.  Yes – a more formal article is likely to have a better thought out argument than a blog.  Likewise a formal risk process is likely to be more coherent and logistically consistent.  However, just as a formal argument is not necessarily a better read than a blog, I am not sure that a formal risk process is always better than a creative “in the moment” risk process.

 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Throw out the old, ...

by Stephen McPhie, CA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com 

 

The principal at my daughter’s school made the observation that many kids in the class would end up in jobs that don’t exist today.  That is probably true, so what skill set do you try to teach the kids?  Obviously there are basics like language, basic math, etc.  But many employers complain that kids come out of school ill equipped for the workplace.  I would venture that learning how to learn, flexibility and not just an ability to embrace change, but also an ability to lead change would be worthy objectives.

 

But if the types of jobs are changing ever more rapidly, so are existing jobs.  And that includes the risk management profession at least as much as any other.  So are your risk managers content with today’s established practices?  Or are they constantly discussing and testing out new ideas to become tomorrow’s risk mangers?

 

 

Monday, March 5, 2012

Ideas Portfolio

by Rick Nason, PhD, CFA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

 

Ever notice that your best ideas never arise when you are consciously thinking about them?  I get my best ideas when I am in the shower, driving to the office, on a walk, or while reading a totally unrelated book.

 

Perhaps in risk management we spend so much time consciously thinking about things that our minds do not have the peace of mind to actually think.