LyrArc Article Gist
Federal Reserve proposals in Dec 2011 for large U.S. banks leave capital cushions at 5% of assets. This phases in the higher 7% of assets rule for capital reserves and a surcharge of upto 2.5% based on bank risk levels under new Basel III regulations for implementation in 2016.

LyrArc Article Gist
The FDIC acknowledges that it has not been able to get banks interested in a pilot program called the Legacy Loans Program. That program was designed to give the banks an opportunity to sell off $1 billion of troubled mortgages. Since November with the efforts of the Troubled Asset Program under Secretary Paulson to have the banks sell off these assets in an auction or some other way, the whole issue of getting the toxic or troubled assets off the books of the banks has been effectively shelved. The Obama administration's version of this was the Geithner Public Private Partnership program, but this like Paulson's TARP never really got off the ground. Instead several things have happened that have enabled banks to show higher profits and improve stock prices. The period from March 2009 to June 2009, a period of several months has seen bank stock prices recover and banks are now able to raise capital on their own from investors. The government's "stress tests" gave the banks credibility with investors and they were designed not to be so stringent as to affect confidence. The mark to market rule has also been relaxed so that banks are no longer required to show these toxic assets at prices that reflect large losses. Bank executives also are wary of the new executive compensation rules of the government. All of these things have combined to create asituation where some confidence has been restored, but at the same time experts are pointing out that the underlying problems of an estimated $1 trillion in troubled assets remains. Banks are even less likely to want to part with these assets at lower prices now that some semblence of confidence is returning, as they would then have to show large losses. What this implies is that if the economy suffered a setback, these problems would return and be just as intractable as ever....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman says earlier profits at Citigroup and BofA were a figment of the accountants imagination. Both announced losses for the third quarter. He says the moment for radical action for banks has passed but now its all upto luck that even as the banks are not lending job growth can be supported. Beyond that there is he says a desperate need for financial reforms.

LyrArc Article Gist
Did U.S. Treaury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, ignore a key request by President Obama to present plans for the restructuring of Citigroup after the government bailout of Citigroup? Ron Suskind says this is what happened in his book on the Obama administration and how the White House operated to make key decisions. Ron Suskind, intervewed key members of the Obama White House economic policy team, Lawrence Summers, Christina Romer, Peter Orszag. In all Suskind conducted 700 hours of interviews for his new book in Sept 2011: "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President." According to the book, in early 2009 after Obama authorized a series of stress tests for banks he told Geithner to develop a plan for restructuring Citigroup. A month later at a meeting not attended by Geithner Obama raised a question about the status of the plan. He was told by Romer that no restructuring plan had been developed for Citi. Suskind says Geithner disagreed about a plan to restructure Citi and decided to ignore the request. Geithner and the Treasury Department say Obama asked Geithner to develop a backup plan to overhaul banks if the government was forced to keep a big ownership stake in the companies, and "there was fortunately never a need to put them in place." Geithner told Suskind that he doesn't slow-walk the President on any matter. Other aspects of the operation of the economic policy team that Suskind covers are a series of memos from top aide Pete Rouse raising questions that ongoing communication between some members of the economic team and Summers was giving Summers power to shape policy. Summers, Director of the National Economic Council, is shown as trying to keep out the views of Romer and budget director Orszag from reaching the President without going through him. When Orszag gives a private report to the president on the deficit, Summers objects saying that this was immoral. Obama lacked the fresh ideas needed to tackle the problems created by the mortgage and banking crisis of 2008, when he used the Clinton administration economic policy team of the 1990's- Rubin, Bernanke, Summers and Geithner. Fresh approaches were needed two decades after Clinton's election in 1992, and the Bush administration that followed, as many of the problems developed during this period. The similiar embedded thinking was shared during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the economic advisors about dealings with the banking sector, but the situation for deficits, unemployment, housing, and the economy had completely changed requiring fresh approaches. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For the first time since the 2008 global financial crisis a initiative has been put to voters for tackling executive pay and bonus. A large majority of 68% of Swiss voters supported the 24 item Minder Initiative which restricts executive pay and bonuses. The Minder Initiative sends a signal to the rest of the world, says Christa Markwalder, a legislator for the pro-business Free Democratic Party. It provides other countries with a distinct approach to corporate governance and executive compensation. The EU decision to impose strict limits on executive pay and bonuses influenced Swiss voters. The EU decision bans bankers bonuses from exceeding fixed salary without shareholder approval, and limits flexible pay to twice the salary. The 24 item Minder measure gives shareholders the right to block proposed executive pay and bonuses. It also has penalties for violators of 6 times annual salary or imprisonment of upto 3 years. Businessmen and politician Thomas Minder has worked for three years promoting his Initiative and it was finally put to voters in 2013. For the first time since the 2008 global financial crisis, serious action is being taken to limit excessive executive compensation and bonuses in banking and other industries. It comes as austerity measures and high unemployment are influencing public opinion in Spain, UK, Italy and other European countries which have suffered banking crises....

LyrArc Article Gist
Brooks takes a different view about the 1986 Reagan tax reforms providing a way forward in 2013. He says growth is slower now in the U.S. with changes in the global economy and any growth killing tax increases or disincentives for investment are risky changes. He suggests taxing consumption and providing incentives for savings and investment. Closing loopholes will have to tackle the major deductions such as charitable deductions says Brooks.

LyrArc Article Gist
Nocera points out that in a larger sense pay czar Feinberg hasn't accomplished his goal- to change the ethos of the pay culture at banks and companies. $200 million to be paid out at AIG is in contracts for March 2010, and 14 of the highest Citigroup executives still will make $5 million to $9 million each, and Ken Lewis wil still get $70 million in retirement pay, and nothing that Feinberg can do about it. A lot of it has been shoved under the rug. As far as shifting compensation to stock instead of salary, Goldman and Morgan Stanley have already done that and that is a change that is already happening at these banks. But executive compensation will nevertheless be out of proportion and the public angry. Nell Minnow, the co-founder of the Corporate Library, says the only way is to throw the bums out, meaning the board members on the compensation committees. But this is up to shareholders and the job maybe to make it possible for shareholders to do so easily.

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
Barney Frank, of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is interviewed by the New York Times one year after the passage of the legislation. He says we did not punt anything, it was because the legislators couldn't get everything right that they set up the provision for extensive rule making. He would rather forget financial matters as they are not his strong point, he has learnt more about repos and derivatives than he ever wanted. Critics have pointed to the extensive rule making delegated to regulators in Dodd Frank as a major weakness. It makes Dodd-Frank as effective as the regulators want it to be, something that goes back to an earlier period before 2008 when lack of regulatory discipline led to the financial crisis. He gives the regulatory agencies CFTC and the S.E.C. good grades for writing some of the rules because of the difficult conditions they face. His main fear is the stalling by Republicans in Congress and efforts to weaken the law by crimping resources for the agencies. And he fears the Republicans with support from the banking industry see the 2012 presidential elections as an opportunity to reverse the legislation....

LyrArc Article Gist
The truth is very different from the rhetoric coming from the Obama administration about helping Main Street America and ordinary workers against "fat-cat bankers," says Goldfarb. Under the Obama administration banks have grown larger and gained more influence over administration decisions. No conditions were made part of the agreement that would require banks to lend a portion of the money handed out to the banks to ordinary borrowers. And not much of significance was done to help homeowners under water, which would enable a faster recovery. In this respect the policies slanted in favor of banks of the Obama administration worsened the prospects of an economic recovery. Experts from Reagan advisor Martin Feldstein- who as early as 2008 advocated serious help to homeowners under water to reduce principal and interest- to the FDIC's Sheila Bair and Princeton Prof. Krugman, across the ideological spectrum, perceived this being in the national interest. Feldstein's first op-ed on his plan appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 3/7/2008, followed by ones on 4/15/2008, 10/4/2008, 1/20/2010/ 10/12/2011 in WSJ, and a oped on 10/30/2008 in the Washington Post, repeating the call for siginificant debt reduction to homeowners. Banks had extraordinary influence on successive administrations in the U.S., both Republican and Democratic- the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations- so that policy actions could be distorted from what would otherwise take place. A study by two University of Michigan professors shows that banks did not increase lending after receiving government money. Instead taxpayer money was used to invest in risky securities for profits from short term price movements, resulting in gains of about 10% in investment returns. Ran Duchin, one of the two professors, says helping ordinary borrowers was not the most profitable use of capital for banks. Without the necessary conditions from the Obama administration, the banks depolyed capital in ways that did not help the economy. Similiarly when banks needed to be restructured no preparatory action was taken because of resistance within the administration- a request by President Obama to Treasury Secretary Geithner for preparing a plan for the restructuring of Citigroup was ignored, according to a report by Goldfarb and Wallsten on 9/17/2011 in the Washington Post....

LyrArc Article Gist
The SEC requirement that companies disclose the ratio between median worker pay and the pay of senior executives. The SEC says it is putting out the rule as part of implementing Dodd-Frank legislation to control excessive executive pay. Companies will be allowed to survey a fraction of their workforce as appropriate for companies with global operations. Executive pay will include pension benefits and stock options under the new rule. A WSJ chart using information from the University of Southern California and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows the ratio between what CEO's on average make and rank and file workers make remained at about 30 times in the post war period till about 1970, a period of rapid growth in the U.S. economy. By 1980 this climbed to about 60 times and exceeded 100 times by 1990. The period of stratospheric growth for CEO pay and extreme widening of the gap then occurs between 1990 and 2000. By 2000 the dot com boom- telecom boom and the internet- creates a surge in executive pay reaching over 500 times. This drops to about 280 times in 2008 and picks up again to reach about 320 times in 2011. Many of the poor business practices, the excessive leveraging and risktaking in the financial industry, take place against this background of excessive pay for senior executives. Some of that risk was passed on to others through such methods as securitization in the period leading to the 2008 financial crisis, so that executives were compensated with higher pay for taking excessive risk that they personally or their companies did not assume. Dodd-Frank legislation following the 2008 financial crisis sought to correct this imbalance by having pay information disclosed. The excessive pay has also coincided with an increase in the frequency of boom-bust cycles in the economy. The busts prompted the needs for intervention by the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, to drop interest rates more than would otherwise have happened during this decade, culminating in the huge bond purchases and monetary easing by the Bernanke Fed. The SEC under Mary Jo White is mindful of these distortions in the economy as a result of misallocation of resources based on excessive executive pay, and the need to take action before the next crisis. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Frank writing about the public outrage about executive compensation quotes Bill Black, a Professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who makes an important point. Beyond the size of this compensation there was something else happening that was perverse in its design and in its effects. Black says that at each point in the development of the disaster of mortgage securitization, it was the pay for performance systems that sent the wrong signals to loan officers, real estate appraisers, accountants, and bond rating agencies. The compensation or reward systems actually encouraged wrong, unethical and ultimately disastrous behaviours for the companies and the economy. Another way to look at it, the way it happened on Wall Street- especially at Merrill Lynch and some other financial institutions- the bonuses and other compensation was a way for executives to recklessly milk (loot is the other word) the companies for all they could yield regardless of the results afterwards. And as Black says, to do this through normal corporate mechanisms. A whole range of behaviours of this type took place in the final years of the boom. See other articles by Thomas Frank. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Elizabeth Warren on the need for a new consumer protection agency as suggested by President Obama in his proposals.

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
Max Fisher of the NYT points out the unique approach taken by Canada in the U.S.-Canada relationship - to cultivate a grassroots network of Americans in legislatures, business, and at different levels of government. This has enabled the Trudeau government to build a relationship with president Trump, and at the same time have relationships at different levels of government and with business in the U.S. to tackle issues where the Trump administration has acted in ways unfavorable for Canada. Provincial governments in Ontario and Quebec lobbied against a New York state government provision for Buying American on state contracts worth over $100,000. By emphasizing the $10 billion in exports from New York to Ontario this lobbying persuaded the New York legislature to cancel the provision. Premier Trudeau's popularity helps and the proximity to the U.S. means Canadians can visit quickly and understand the U.S. as a close neighbor. Still Premier Kathleen Wynne of Ontario says Canadian businesses are nervous about the uncertainty from the Trump administration.   ...