<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fed&#8217;s capital proposal not as tough as feared, may give U.S. banks advantage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2011/12/22/feds-capital-proposal-not-as-tough-as-feared-may-give-u-s-banks-advantage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2011/12/22/feds-capital-proposal-not-as-tough-as-feared-may-give-u-s-banks-advantage/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:29:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: PerKurowski</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2011/12/22/feds-capital-proposal-not-as-tough-as-feared-may-give-u-s-banks-advantage/comment-page-1/#comment-7777</link>
		<dc:creator>PerKurowski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/?p=8869#comment-7777</guid>
		<description>Basel I, II and III all presuppose that ex-ante risk perceptions are correct and therefore, by means of low risk-weights, allow for very little bank capital when lending to what is perceive as “not-risky”… like triple-A rated securities and infallible sovereigns!

That is loony because there has never ever been a bank crisis resulting from excessive exposure to what ex-ante is perceived as risky… they all have resulted from excessive exposures to what ex-ante was perceived as absolutely not risky.

When will the regulators understand that their duty is to regulate for the possibility that the ex-ante perceptions about risk-turn out to be wrong?

If the moderator allows it here is a video that explains how the regulators rewarded the banks for not taking risks and thereby caused the safe-havens to be dangerously overcrowded http://bit.ly/dFRiMs</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Basel I, II and III all presuppose that ex-ante risk perceptions are correct and therefore, by means of low risk-weights, allow for very little bank capital when lending to what is perceive as “not-risky”… like triple-A rated securities and infallible sovereigns!</p>
<p>That is loony because there has never ever been a bank crisis resulting from excessive exposure to what ex-ante is perceived as risky… they all have resulted from excessive exposures to what ex-ante was perceived as absolutely not risky.</p>
<p>When will the regulators understand that their duty is to regulate for the possibility that the ex-ante perceptions about risk-turn out to be wrong?</p>
<p>If the moderator allows it here is a video that explains how the regulators rewarded the banks for not taking risks and thereby caused the safe-havens to be dangerously overcrowded <a href='http://bit.ly/dFRiMs'>http://bit.ly/dFRiMs</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
