Alignment of Capital Reserves

A significant feature of HR 10, now in the US Senate, is realignment of capital reserves. The act, supporters say, will increase the requirements without putting small banks at a disadvantage, reducing regulations at the same time.

The requirements are based on the quantity of capital assets and not the risk associated with the use of those assets. Really, then, as many critics point out, HR 10 does not actually align with the probable risk.

Again, look at the “intendency” of the legislative measure known as “The Financial Choice Act.” TBTF banks are free to choose what the probable risk is despite whatever the reserve requirements are.

It appears that HR 10 is a measure designed to protect the public from risk. Most people do not actively control the risk, however, but can actively participate in the detriment, systemically derived.

Increasing capital reserves does not reduce who encounters the detriment; and if you are managing the risk, you certainly do not “intend” for it to be you!

(See other articles by griffithlighton on “the intendency” and proprietary management of risk dimension.)

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Political-Economy and Philosophy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s