LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist says Britain's economic recovery will not be complete until interest rates are well above zero and productivity growth is established. Without productivity growth and growth in wages, both lacking in the economic recovery since 2009, tax revenues will not be enough to reduce the deficit, requiring more spending cuts. That means the Bank of England will not raise interest rates, keeping a situation of no rate changes prevailing since March 2009 when the central bank cut rates by 0.5%. In the current situation the Bank of England is not expected to raise rates till 2016, only after the U.S. Federal Reserve increases rates to avoid appreciation in the pound and further deflationary pressure, according to Goldman Sachs. With inflation currently at zero, following the drop in oil prices, and 10% appreciation in the pound since mid 2013 making imports cheaper, there is little pressure to increase interest rates. In 2011 inflation with rising food and energy prices reached 5.2% , but the Bank of England did not raise rates because of the eurozone economic crisis affecting growth. Only since 2013 has economic growth picked up with 1.2 million jobs created since the beginning of 2013, bringing unemployment down from a high of 8.5% in 2011 to 5.6% in May 2015. Throughout the recovery productivity growth is falling behind- 2014 productivity measured by output per hour worked was 1.3% lower than in 2011, and 14% below the pre-crisis trend, according to the Economist....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Fed announced that it will review compensation policies of 28 of the large complex banking organizations in the USA. The review will be an horizontal one that compares them to each other. The other significant move is that the Fed wants to see employees who take greater risks and use large amounts of borrowed money, to receive negative points in evaluating how well they have done, and consequently to be compensated less than other employees who earn money for banking firms while controlling the risks associated with transactions. This ties in with the discussions at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, where the Europeans pushed for tighter regulation on bonuses and pay, to control the excessive risktaking of banking firms. This is because the prevailing culture in global financial institutions is a high risk high return culture, which ignores the social consequences of bad decisions. There is no cost to individuals taking the risks on other people's money, and regulations discouraging risk are not in place. The question remains, is this an adequate response to prevent future crises, or too little too late? If the banking community does not see it this way, and financial regulation is watered down in Congress- see the links to this- then it will much like Don Quixote swinging at windmills. In this sense the title of this piece is a misnomer, as the Fed has not hit banks with sweeping pay limits. It only said it would review pay practices. It is jawboning of the mild kind to show the public something is done. See Paul Volcker's point that pay practices would adjust and desirable goal of less risktaking and reasonable salaries would be achieved by separating deposit taking banks from banks engaged in trading activities. Similiarly, the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, made the point recently that the biggest banks should be broken up. That is supported by the intuitive sense of experts that banks engaged with depositors should be engaged in the social functions of society, lending and supporting economic activity, and the trading desks of investment banks should operate entirely separately from this. One should be insulated from the other. In this sense there is a bit of evasion in these actions. A Wall Street capture of regulatory activity continues, of regulators and senior economic advisors in the administration, as the coziness between the two lingers on from a previous era of deregulation. This has the potential to cost the country and the global economy dearly in another crisis, and the jobless and young jobless people especially. In this economy both in Europe and the USA, the jobless young have been left with the least hope. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Too big to run is where the banks are today. Excellence in management would help, but banks have just grown too big, bigger than even before the crisis. Bank of America's 2.3 trillion dollars in assets is 10 times the size of Exxon says the Econmist, and they need to shrink and simplify things. And even with the deities at Goldman Sachs the bank remains a black box.

LyrArc Article Gist
Laurence Kotlikoff is a Boston University economist who calls the Obama administration's plans for fixing the financial system akin to "putting a Band-Aid on cancer." He outlines his own proposal in a book just out with the title: Jimmy Stewart is Dead. It calls for taking the risk out of the nation's financial system with "too-big-to-fail" banks, which threaten America's financial system, and may cost huge amounts of taxpayer money approaching by one estimate the entire unfunded liabilities of the Social Security System. He writes in the book that "the problem is the leveraging of the taxpayer by people with no formal training in finance or economics, no personal downside, an assortment of Napoleonic complexes, the money to buy ratings in New York and policy in Washington, and the ability to run circles around regulators." His proposal is to turn banks - intermediaries taking deposits and making loans- into institutions that connect borrowers and depositors with very safe mutual funds created for this reason. Each deposit would be pooled with other deposits in the new kind of mutual fund with all the money held in cash. These mutual funds would supply loans. This strips banks of their risk-taking function. It has attracted attention and support of Columbia University's Jeffrey Sachs and University of Chicago's Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Lucas. Most recently Bank of England's Governor mentioned Kotlikoff three times in a speech to Parliament as ideas worth looking at. With bankssstripped of risk-taking only one single Federal Financial Authority as the national regulator would be needed, instead of the myriad regulators in the current system that have failed in crises. MIT's Simon Johnson agrees that some strong action is needed and compares the need for action with what Theodore Roosevelt had to do to break up the once impregnable Standard Oil. By 1911 the Supreme Court had broken up Standard Oil into 34 companies....

LyrArc Article Gist
Exchange of remarks between Ben Bernanke of the Fed and James Dimon of JP Morgan Chase Bank on regulation and new capital reserve requirements for large U.S. banks. Fed governor Tarullo has proposed a 14% requirement of capital reserves for banks that are "too big to fail."

LyrArc Article Gist
Wessel summarizes the existing thinking of the administration and its critics on ways to prevent the next banking crisis. The Shultz-Mervyn King School which says breakup the largest banks into smaller banks so they are not too big to fail. The Volcker school which says separate utility banking from thre risk taking banking of the trading desks of investment banks. And the Geithner-Frank school of avoiding these tough choices in the face of intense lobbying by the banks by glossing over the problem, their latest proposal suggesting that Treasury collect the bill of abank bailout from the remaining weakened banks in afinancial crisis of the future. But the Geithner -Frank solution still has Treasury, meaning the government footing the bill, as collecting the bailout from remaining banks that are weak in such a financial crisis may not be feasible. and it would further worsen the government's finances, raising questions about these proposals which may amount to doing a little better than nothing. In effect avoiding the tough choices of breaking up the larger banks or separating utility banking from trading desks of investment banks....

LyrArc Article Gist
Except for a couple of investment banks at the top which are also taking on high levels of trading risk, the test of the pyramid of American banks is shaky says the Economist. The banks at the bottom, the smaller banks are in deep deep trouble, with CreditSights estimating that upto 1100 of 8200 of these smaller banks needing help from the FDIC to wind down. And the other banks like Citigroupa and BofA with some state ownership in amessy situation with bad loans.

LyrArc Article Gist
James Pressley reviews Simon Johnson and James Kwak's new book - "13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. " He suggests reading the first and last chapter for what the authors recommend, limiting banks to no more than 4% of GDP in assets or $570 billion maximum, and investment banks to 2% of GDP or $285 billion. Pressley agrees that incremental steps are not going to change the situation. And the authors have thought this thing through, with Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF and writer of the Economix columns in the New York Times on the current crisis in Greece, Portugal and Spain. Some of their analysis on that crisis has been borne out by developments, as Greece lurched towards default with the slow response of Germany enlarging the dimensions of the crisis, and requiring a larger bailout for Greece of $160 billion in late April.

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT's Landon Thomas gives this exceptional report on how Deutsche Bank changed from a lender to the German auto industry and safe banking practices to enter the derivatives business and other opaque financial products that led to taking on huge risks. Deutsche Bank has agreed on Dec. 22, 2016 to settle with the U.S. Justice Department paying a fine of $7.2 billion for practices relating to faulty mortgage securities. This report says the problems started in 1995 with Deutsche Bank's leadership hiring Edson Mitchell of Merrill Lynch to promote the investment banking business at Deutsche Bank. Mitchell hired two derivatives traders Broeksmit and Anshu Jain. Mr. Mitchell died in plane crash in 2000 when he was 47 years age, Mr. Broeksmit committed suicide in 2014, 58 years in age, Mr. Anshu Jain, 53 years old, is the only surviving person of the three. Under Mr. Jain Deutsche Bank assumed more and more risk, and was involved in complex and opaque financial products leading to the toxic mortgage crisis, and manipulation of the lending rate for London banks.  It also lent $300 million to Donald Trump's businesses. Most of the profits generated from this venture have evaporated, with analysts estimating $15 billion in fines and penalties owed of the $20 billion that these ventures generated. Not counting the serious damage to the bank's reputation in Germany and the U.S. This report points out the role played by the CEO from 2002 to 2012 of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann, in encouraging these ventures converting the bank from its original loan as a contintental lender to business to a bank selling opaque financial products for most of its profits. Landon Thomas also describes the events and days leading up to the suicide by Broeksmit, including a visit to a psychiatrist and Broeksmit's facing enormous stress about the investigations underway in Germany and the U.S. looking into the opaque financial products and practices of Deutsche Bank. This is also a cautionary tale about what happened in banking from the late 1990's leading to the collapse in 2008, leading to the problems of today- the need to rescue the economy in 2008-2009 and the low rate world that ensued damaging the savings of ordinary people, the infrastructure that was never built, the parallel crisis of the hollowing out in manufacturing as a false prosperity boomed in banking and finance. In a sense it is also a story of everyday lives that were damaged in the high flying boardrooms of finance in New York, London and Frankfurt. The revolving door between regulators and the banks made it harder to monitor and control banking risk letting this story unfold over decades, damaging the credibility of governments and the established political parties without clear alternatives from outside; as the dominance of Wall Street executives in the new outsider Trump administration shows.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Fed's own files, data from 21,000 Fed transactions over 2007-2010, are revealed in a kind of Wikileaks release. The data is available because of a transparency provision in the Dodd-Frank bill introduced by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. This editorial in the Wall Street Journal shows that banks on Wall Street received much more help than advertised. Goldman Sachs is shown to have used the Primary Dealer Credit Facility 212 times for an amount of nearly $600 billion. Morgan Stanley is shown to have used the overnight Fed lending program 212 times from March 2008 to March 2009. The Wall Street Journal editorial concludes that this makes it impossible for someone to argue that either bank would have survived the financial storm without the Fed's help. The same is true for General Electric. GE tapped the Fed's Commercial Paper Funding Facility 12 times for more than $15 billion And with the help of the FDIC's debt guarantee program GE sold $60 billion of government guaranteed debt. GE and Citicorp are shown to be the heaviest users of that program from November 2008 to Juy 2009. The overwhelming lesson, says this editorial, is to ensure that there is no repeat of this kind of situation. And the new Congress needs to tighten the too-big-to-fail criteria....

LyrArc Article Gist
Simon Johnson and Peter Boone say not taking forceful action with the large banks- taking them through bankruptcy and restructuring procedures as advocated by senior Federal Reserve officials like Peter Hoenig- will only lead to irreversible damage. The current Geithner-Summers policy being followed by the Obama administration is simply to hope that by fiscal stimulus and economic recovery the banks may be brought to sustained profits and be able to muddle through their financial problems. This Johnson argues is not likely to happen and the cost will be higher debt levels for America, irreversible damage as America faces low debt and financially stronger countries in Asia and sees its position in the world weaken. The muddle through policies for banks of the Obama administration have little prospects in the face of an IMF estimated $275 billion shortfall in capital on balance sheets at large banks (from the IMF Global Financial stability Report). Without aggressive action on the banks America's recovery and renewal will only delayed....

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Fed governor, Daniel Tarullo, said in a recent speech that U.S. financial institutions could be required to meet stronger capital requirements than the Basel international standards. The Fed is considering requiring the riskiest financial institutions to put aside 8.4% to 14% of capital. The Basel standards require institutions to gradually increase the capital cushions to 7% by 2019 from about 2% at this time. Less risky institutions would would have a smaller increase over the Basel standards- about 20% compared to the 100% increase over Basel for the riskiest institutions. Speaking at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Tarullo said- "The regulatory structure ...should discourage systemically consequential growth or mergers unless the benefits to society are clearly significant." Tarullo said no one wants to see another TARP. Banks would have to build up their capital reserves using common equity and not other forms of less reliable capital such as contingent capital, where banks convert debt instruments into equity in an emergency. Tarullo emphasized the need for the U.S. to move beyond the Basel requirements, known as Basel III, because they are narrowly designed for individual institutions and do not adequately address the systemic risk. When there is a high degree of risk correlation among many actors in fast moving markets additional risks are created which require stronger capital standards. Tarullo said systemically important institutions have "no incentive to carry enough capital to reduce the chances of such systemic losses."...

LyrArc Article Gist
George Will describes the views of Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on "too-big-to-fail" risks in the U.S. banking system.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Large Institution Supervision Coordination Committee (LISCC) was setup by Fed chairman Bernanke and Fed governor Tarullo, in 2010. The Fed's 200 PhD's, bank examiners and other experts at headquarters are now tapped for the the task of looking at adverse scenarios, checking on assumptions made by the banks in their analysis, requesting data from large banks on their loan and securities portfolios, and asking banks to consider adverse scenarios. Such adverse scenarios include a decline in the U.S. economic growth of 1.5% in 2011, and decline in housing. The Fed checks the banks estimate of its financial position aginst the Fed's own standard and prods the banks to consider new risks. Before the 2008 crisis the Fed's 12 Reserve Banks did the day to day supervision and reported back to Board of Governors, a system that led to a diffusion of responsibility and did not work. Former Fed vice chairman, Alan Blinder, says the bank boards did not exercize responsibility, and "blew it, big time," during the financial crisis. This approach has the effect of acting as a early warning for the banks for things that could go wrong. J.P. Morgan Chase CFO Braunstein made a Feb 15 presentation to show that Chase's stress scenario was more stringent than the Fed's. The current review says Tarullo includes asking banks to do a check before issuing dividends to shareholders, and consider what would happen if the economy is in trouble in the next 9 quarters. According to Fed guidelines issued in November if the bank's plan does not show enough capital to handle economic, regulatory and lending risks, the Fed can challenge the bank's decision....