(Before It's News)
Just want to remind again that bank regulators who only look at what is on the banks’ balance sheets while ignoring entirely what should be there if the banking needs of the real economy were served, should be fired.
And of course the BoE has most probably not done that. That I say because Mark Carney is one of those regulators who see nothing wrong with capital requirements for banks that uses a risk weight of zero percent for the sovereign and 100% for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
Sir, should the stress testing of our banks also say something about their relative usefulness?
In 1997 I ended an Op-Ed
with: “If we insist in maintaining a firm defeatist attitude which definitely does not represent a vision of growth for the future, we will most likely end up with the most reserved and solid banking sector in the world, adequately dressed in very conservative business suits, presiding over the funeral of the economy. I would much prefer their putting on some blue jeans and trying to get the economy moving.”
Sir, I have no detailed knowledge about British banks, but what if RBS was the bank serving Britain’s real
PS. We need some outstanding Main-Street/Real Economy knowledgeable, to stress test bank regulators