by Summary:
A recent op-ed on this blog by Paul Kupiec misstates the Clearing House’s criticism of the supplementary leverage ratio. Kupiec’s article indicates that the Clearing House’s position is contained in a recent article by Darrell Duffie, a professor at Stanford University. Although Professor Duffie’s article appeared in the Clearing House’s quarterly journal “Banking Perspectives”, his views were his own, and he received no compensation from the Clearing House. We will let Mr. Kupiec debate Dr. Duffie’s views with Dr. Duffie. As for us, the Clearing House’s arguments against the leverage ratio are explained in a Clearing House Research note, “Shortcomings of Leverage Ratio Requirements,” which has been available on our website for over a year. The leverage ratio’s core intractable problem
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: bank leverage ratio, Clearing House, Darrell Duffie, Paul Kupiec, risk, SLR
This could be interesting, too:
A recent op-ed on this blog by Paul Kupiec misstates the Clearing House’s criticism of the supplementary leverage ratio. Kupiec’s article indicates that the Clearing House’s position is contained in a recent article by Darrell Duffie, a professor at Stanford University. Although Professor Duffie’s article appeared in the Clearing House’s quarterly journal “Banking Perspectives”, his views were his own, and he received no compensation from the Clearing House. We will let Mr. Kupiec debate Dr. Duffie’s views with Dr. Duffie. As for us, the Clearing House’s arguments against the leverage ratio are explained in a Clearing House Research note, “Shortcomings of Leverage Ratio Requirements,” which has been available on our website for over a year. The leverage ratio’s core intractable problem
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: bank leverage ratio, Clearing House, Darrell Duffie, Paul Kupiec, risk, SLR
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes My new podcast episode is out
Frances Coppola writes Bitcoin fixes Microstrategy (or does it?)
Mike Norman writes In Groundbreaking Move, Fed Excludes Treasurys From Leverage Ratio Rule: Here’s What That Means — Tyler Durden
Frances Coppola writes European banks and the global banking glut
A recent op-ed on this blog by Paul Kupiec misstates the Clearing House’s criticism of the supplementary leverage ratio. Kupiec’s article indicates that the Clearing House’s position is contained in a recent article by Darrell Duffie, a professor at Stanford University. Although Professor Duffie’s article appeared in the Clearing House’s quarterly journal “Banking Perspectives”, his views were his own, and he received no compensation from the Clearing House.
We will let Mr. Kupiec debate Dr. Duffie’s views with Dr. Duffie. As for us, the Clearing House’s arguments against the leverage ratio are explained in a Clearing House Research note, “Shortcomings of Leverage Ratio Requirements,” which has been available on our website for over a year. The leverage ratio’s core intractable problem is that it treats all bank assets as having the same level of risk, from deposits at the central bank and Treasury securities to leveraged loans, loans to small businesses and credit card loans. If the leverage ratio were simply a backstop that didn’t influence bank behavior, its poor design would be irrelevant for banks’ capital planning decisions. But as I explain below, it clearly is influencing banks’ behavior, and its flaws therefore have dangerous implications....American Banker
Setting the record straight on why leverage ratio must change
William Nelson | head of research and chief economist for The Clearing House, and formerly a deputy director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Federal Reserve Board