LyrArc Article Gist
Areas in the "too big to fail" part of Dodd-Frank U.S. financial reform legislation where work remains to be done to prevent a future crisis include: the creation of living wills by the largest banks so that they can be dismantled in an orderly fashion, and the designation of which banks are systemic risks by the Financial Oversight Stability Council. The FDIC and the Federal Reserve have yet to finalize the rules for creating "living wills" for large banks. The rules are expected to be finalized by fall 2011. The FOSC is working on the designations and what criteria to use for selecting the non-bank firms that pose systemic risks. Progress has been made at the FDIC by finishing several rules for implementing a new system to wind down a large failing bank. The FDIC is hiring staff for a new office that focusses specifically on large complex financial firms. Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo has led the effort for higher capital reserve requirements for U.S. banks, requirements that would be closer to 14% for capital reserves. In an editorial on June 16, 2011, the Wall Street Journal said that if the Federal Reserve is serious about controlling systemic risk then it should support capital reserve requirements of 14%....

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Eavis discusses ways in which regulators are conducting ongoing supervision of large banks under the Dodd-Frank legislation- with stress tests, and the review of living wills of banks in 2016

LyrArc Article Gist
Glen Hubbard, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush and is now Dean of Columbia University Business School, Hal Scott professor of International Fiancial Systems at Harvard Law School, and Luigi Zingales professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, say a different plan of action is needed from what the Obama administration is doing to tackle the banking crisis. They are really skeptical about the the Public Private Investment Program and other plans put forth upto now for several reasons. First, in every case they say there is a lot of carrot but very little stick, and this won't work. TARP program was mostly carrot, with Treasury getting back securities worth $78 billion less than the $254 billion invested, as pointed out by the Congressional Oversight Panel.The FDIC's guarantee of short term debt was worth $100 billion just for the original nine TARP participating banks, and the mortgage related asset guarantees offered Citibank and Bank of America were worth tens of billions. They see anew round of TARP injections with the conversion of the government's preferred stock into equity after release of the stress test results. Then there is PPIP the Public Private Investment Program, and its plans to subsidize the purchase of bank's"toxic assets" by hedge funds and other investors. They estimate the government will spend $2 for every $1 the private sector puts up. And even with this subsidy their thinking is that the probability of succes is low for the same reason that has prevailed since the earlier efforts by Treasury Secretary Paulson- there is just too big a gap between the bid and ask prices on the toxic assets, and add to that the reluctance of investors to partner with the government. Its time for more stick say these experts as the problem of toxic assets, and of credit and lending in the economy, will hang like a large shadow over the economy, as long as these tough problems are not wrestled with. This is the Hubbard-Scott-Luigi Plan: 1) The FDIC should announce that its guarantees of short term debt set to expire in October will not be renewed. Insolvent banks, defined not by stress tests but as those that cannot fund themselves in the private market, will be taken over by the FDIC under aclear and credible action plan. 2) The FDIC lacks the resources to run several large and complex banks which may become insolvent. And waving the idea of nationalization the creditors may try to get the government to bail them out. The authors of this plan say the FDIC should solit each bank into a "bad bank" and a "good bank." The "bad bank" would carry all the residential and commercial real estate loans and securitized mortgages as assets, and all the long term debt as liabilities. THe "bad bank" would obtain along term laon from the good bank to fund the assets of the bad bank. Al the remaining assets including the derivative contracts and the loan to the bad bank would be assets of the good bank. It would also have all the insured deposits and the FDIC guaranteed short term debt as liabilities. With the split accomplished the good bank can be released from FDIC receivership. 3) The long term debt holders would be compensated by receiving all the equity of the good bank. The old shareholders would get the equity in the bad bank. And in any restructuring bondholders should do better than equity holders. If banks are not really insolvent as some say and just facing temporary dislocations, then the bad bank will eventually surge in value, and the equity holders will do alright, and if not they will receive nothing as they should. 4) For this to work legislation needs to take effect before October for FDIC procedures for handling failed banks to be also applicable to bank holding companies. And this new legislation puts no new cost on the taxpayer....

LyrArc Article Gist
Kadish says interest on the national debt is 383 billion dollars or over 40% of the national individual income tax revenues of $904 billion. This according to Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt. THe COngressional Budget Offfice estimates the 2009 budget deficit to be about $1.4 trillion or about 10% of GDP. OMB estimates total government revenues at $2 trillion. As of 2009 the national debt waas $12 trillion according to Treasury. and OMB forecasts $9 trillion of projected deficits over the nexxt 10 years. This means the natioanl debt could reach $21 trillion by 2019. OMB projects $13.5 trillion of revenue increases over the next 10 years but this says Kadish is optimistic and minimizes the rise in interest rates from larger debt burden. In the light of this adding more social programs he says could lead to asituation of high interest rates double or triple the 2.9% now, on refinanced or new debt.

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
The FDIC chairman, Mr. Gruenberg has defined the agency's strategy under the "orderly liquidation authority" given by the Dodd-Frank legislation to deal with financial firm failures. The Lehman Brothers collapse ruffled fianncial markets worldwide because of the lack of such authority and a organzed well defined plan to deal with bank failures. Gruenberg described the plans to the WSJ. Once the Treasury Department and federal agencies agree that a financial institution has to be taken over, the FDIC would first unwind the parent holding compay of the firm by putting it in receivership and revoking its charter. Unlike the situation for Lehman, the firm's subsidiaries can continue to operate, with financial support from the FDIC held parent company provided by the U.S. government under Dodd-Frank legislation. The next step would be for FDIC to create a "bridge company," with most of the firm's assets going into it. At that point equity holders would be wiped out and a debt for equity swap would be made with creditors. The firm would come out of this process as with a Chapter 11 bankrupcy, as a new recapitalized private firm. The FDIC is trying to build credibility in the markets that it has the ability to do this smoothly, and Gruenberg admits that till it happens its hard to convince markets in a decisive way. Another problem is that 85% of the international assets and derivatives of top U.S. banks are in the UK. Former Fed chairman Volcker is guiding the FDIC, and he sees the FDIC's efforts to work closely with the UK very favorably. These efforts are significant and vital to avoid the worldwide disruption in financial markets that ocurred after the Lehman collapse, and provide a well planned action plan in place of an ad hoc day by day response....

LyrArc Article Gist
Guerrera describes the vital role that FDIC chairman Gruenberg's plan for unwinding failing financial institutions will play in tackling the "too-big-to-fail" problem facing the U.S. He points to the increasing importance of this after the failure of risk management systems at JP Morgan Chase bank.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist asks whether the government can have the resolve to take strong action where necessary with the banks. The feeling is that the government was too close to the banks during the boom, and banks like Goldman have so much influence in the government and many bankers work inside the government, making it difficult to separate the public interest from the interest of the banks. This makes it more difficult to take necessary action when it comes to the banks.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein says in the WPost that the analysts at Goldman Sachs who says companies are undervalued in October 2009, are acting the part of Goldman's marketing machine so that Goldman can use its M&A activity, its trading desk and other financial stock and bond issues to make higher profits. But this risks creating another bubble as there has been a50% runup in stock prices with the DJ average close to 10,000 in October 2009. He says GOldman analysts are talking about how the cash that is on the balance sheets of companies can now be used for acquisitions instead of product development or productive investments. This is dangerous because finance ended up in shaky products like mortgage securities in the last decade instead of being put to productive use in investments for the nation's future. See the links to groups on US National Debt and UK national debt, articles by Kandish on the debt and the risks the US is facing. All the liquidity run up by the Fed can create another bubble if not mopped up. If the Fed moves too quickly at some point when it sees the bubble get out of hand, unemployment and credit tightening could throw the economy into a downward spiral....

LyrArc Article Gist
With fewer banks and securities houses remaining, the remaining banks like Chase and securties houses like Goldaman and Morgan Stanley are using the spreads between the price of buying and selling bonds- and the easy access to government money and FDIC guanrantees for their bonds- to make large profits. In effect the Fed is pouring money into the system to help financial institutions recover and in the process is making it possible for firms like Morgan and Goldman that were on the verge of collapsing to be able to make large profits through cheap money from the Fed. The resulting large bonuses are likely to upset a public and taxpayers who shoulder the dual burdens of a bailout of large banks, which is not making credit easier for small and medium businesses that form the backbone for employment. The smaller banks that support these businesses are failing and being closed by the FDIC. THe result- increasing joblessness and shrinking consumer demand. This is outlined by Ms. Lee in her op-ed article- The Banking System is Broken, WSJ, October 16, 2009. See this link. Meantime banks like Citigroup and Bank of America continue to see losses, so that even these profits are happening in only some parts of Wall Street....

LyrArc Article Gist
Jon Huntsman, Republican candidate for President in 2012, calls for a fee on banks with a size that is above a certain percentage of the GDP. This would cover the cost banks impose on taxpayers when they are bailed out. It would eliminate the advantage banks gain from "too-big-to-fail," a subsidy Huntsman estimates to be one half percentage point in today's market. He points to efforts by the UK and Switzerland for more stringent financial standards than the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon's confidence in Ina Drew was based on her hands on abilities, especially demonstrated during the 2008 financial crisis. Current and former bankers in this account by the Times Silver-Greenberg and Schwartz, say things changed in the years that followed. In 2010 Ina Drew was ill with Lyme's disease. The conflicts between the risk taking propensities of traders at the London trading desk under Mr. Macris, and the more risk conscious New York trading desk under Ms. Duersten, had already led to shouting matches under Ina Drew. After her illness and her absence from the office for long periods this spilled out into the open. In early 2011 Ms. Duersten left Chase after 16 years. Her replacement who would be new to Chase could not restrain the risk taking propensities of Mr. Macris and the London trading desk, the way Duersten and Ina Drew had done earlier. Macris and a trader reporting to him, Mr Iksil (referred to as the "London Whale" for his massive trading positions and bets), were free to operate without any restraint in this environment. Ina Drew returned in 2011, but she was not the same hands on person after the illness. She moved to the corporate offices on the 48th floor, instead of being on the floor above the New York trading desk. In 2008 she had held daily meetings with traders required to defend their trading positions. This did not happen in 2011. Jamie Dimon learned about the London Whale in the Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2012. Dimon's efforts in pushing back against stricter regulation, stress tests, and other issues were to lead to the CEO of the 2008 crisis becoming a much more distracted person in 2011. He was taken unawares by the breakdown in the relationship between the London and New York offices of the Chief Investment Office, the changed situation of Ms. Drew, and that risk management controls at the bank were not in place. Risk management overly depended on one person and the trust of the CEO in that person, and was not institutionalized. At the same time it should be noted that Jamie Dimon became CEO of Chase after the acquisition of Bank One in 2005, and Ina Drew was hired in that year, only three years before the crisis of 2008. The merger of other banks into JP Morgan Chase created a bank with $360 billion investment portfolio- even Ina Drew had never previously handled a portfolio of this size and the complex risks brought in with the Washington Mutual portfolio....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Basel 3 Rules and the extra capital cushions required by 2019, will double the amount of core equity a big bank holds as a proportion of assets. This is happening earlier because markets are making banks increase their capital cushions. But more needs to be done to make "too big to fail" banks in the U.S. and Europe safer, says the Economist in a May 2011 special report on international banking. An independent commission in Britain has suggested an additional equity buffer of 3%. The Economist says the Basel committee should consider similiar rules for the largest banks. Another proposal is being considered by Swiss regulators who want to see their banks holding the equivalent of 9% of their risk weighted assets in convertible capital. This kind of buffer is considered essential to prevent the kind of sudden collapse of the global financial system that was seen in late 2008.

LyrArc Article Gist
A behind the scenes account of what happened at JP Morgan Chase after CEO Jamie Dimon discovered the trading losses of the London Whale through the pages of the Wall Street Journal, on April 6, 2012.

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Barrett, Assistant Managing Editor of Business Week says the year 2009 will represent a year of lost opportunity to reform the financial system. The Obama administration and Congress did not have the courage to do what is needed, and did not take Paul Volcker's advice on the danger of ahandful of banking institutions controllig a major portion of global banking assets. The WSJ reported that the world's 10 biggest banks account for about 70% of global banking assets, up from 59% before the crisis. It is ayear he says of missed opportunities and little was done in so many areas, including derivatives regulation and the credit rating agencies continue doing business as before with clear conflict of interest inherent in their practices. Barrett says genuine reform fizzled, and we will regret it. The Obama administration and Congress let themselves be influenced by the banking lobbyists and bankers, just as they allowed genuine health reform opportunities to slip in 2009.

LyrArc Article Gist
Clive Crook points to the dangers of complacency in 2010. He reminds readers that the critical thing is as Charles Goodhart mentioned in the Financial Times, that capital and liquidity requirements must be time varying and strongly anti-cyclical. He points out that in good times when lending is expanding quickly and financial institutions are least concerned about capital, liquidity requiremets must tighten, something that is not happening under current rules. Repairs in areas of "too big to fail", separating investment banking and commercial banking, and others, will not succeed unless this principle is adopted. And this he says will be opposed by financial institutions because it reduces their growth. But this fight has to be won. It goes back to William McChesney Martin's idea of taking away the punch bowl before the party gets going.

LyrArc Article Gist
Bank of England's governor Mervyn King says that there "has been very little reform" in the FSA and the Gordon Brown government's bank overhauls. He said in a speech to Scottish businessmen that "the belief that appropriate regulation can ensure that speculative activities do not result in failures is a delusion." Paul Volcker, former Fed chairman, is of the same view that regulation will not do what is necessary to avert another crisis, that separating speculative activities from normal deposit taking and banking activities is an essential part of reform. According to King, the capital requirements that regulators impose will not be enough as they are arbitrary, and its hard to know how much capital will be needed for an unpredictable crisis. And having "too-important-to fail" banking firms to continue existing, would require a resolution regime. The better option he believes is to draw a line between utility banking with government guaranteeing these bank's socially necessary functions, from the speculative activities that can be left to market discipline. This means breaking up "too big to fail" firms. Conservative party's Osborne, as shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, sees the need for this separation of banking activities....