LyrArc Article Gist
From the 1950's to the 1980''s profits earned by financial firms excluding insurance and real estate accounted for 10% of total US profits. This grew to 22% by the 1990's and jumped to 34% from 2001 to 2005. A financial sector of this size becomes a danger for the US economy, especially with overleveraging, high-frequency trading, excessive risk-taking and other practices common before the crisis of 2008. It also does not add to the productive strength of the US economy, and diverts human and capital resources that can be productively used elsewhere in the US economy. A large sector also creates its own self-perpetuation mechanisms such as efforts to dilute or reduce the regulation needed for it to function safely and productively. By diminishing the power of the legislative and executive branches of the US government to regulate this sector, it also reduces public confidence in government.

LyrArc Article Gist
Easterly's thoughts on how the swing away from individual initiative, innovation and private enterprise hurt developig countries the last time state run enterprises and state intervention in all aspects of the economy became fashionable, in the 40's and into the 60's and 70's, costing decades of lost progress in many countries. He cautions against learning the wrong lessons from the American experience. The housing bubble and the failure of regulation to be modernized to keep up with changing financial scene and the simple failure of ethical and moderation in behaviour and good business practices teaches other lessons than simply going back to letting the state run things which has not worked in the past.

LyrArc Article Gist
During 2022 the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank issued 6 warning citations to Silicon Valley Bank, saying that its bank practices did not allow for enough cash in the event of crisis. By July 2022 in a full supervisory review it was rated deficient for governance and controls. At a meeting with senior leaders of the bank the possible exposure to interest rate losses related to Fed increasing rates was also discussed says this report in NYT. The Fed regulators stated that the bank was using wrong models showing that SVB bank would do better as interest rates increased. Questions are being asked about why things that were in plain sight were overlooked by the regulators- 97% of deposits were uninsured by the federal government. In the event of a crisis depositors might try to get their deposits out causing a run on the bank which is what actually happened with $42 billion attempted withdrawals in one day. Michael Barr is the vice chair for Fed supervision. A investigation report is expected by May 1. March 29 the House Financial Services Committee will hold ahearing in Congress. Peter Conti-Brown, an expert on financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania calls it failure of banking supervision, and says it will become clear from the investigation whether the supervisors failed in their work. One of the problems is that the CEO of SVB bank, Gregory Becker, was on the Board of the San Francisco Fed. NYT says the optics of this is bad. Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, calls it absurd that he was appointed to the Fed board of the institution that was regulating SVB bank. Another problem is that Randall Quarles, vice chair of Fed supervision 2017-2021 carried out a 2018 regulatory roll back law of president Trump in an expansive way says NYT. This law exempted banks with less than $250 billion in assets from strict banking supervision that larger banks were expected to go through. Fed chairman Powell is criticized for not  flagging these steps as potentially dangerous for the banking system in the way this was done by vice chair Lael Brainard. Brainard is now head of Biden's National Economic Council. She never favored the Trump law and had grasped early the risks of such deregulation. Sanders will bring a new law to prevent bank CEO's from sitting on Fed boards, and Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for an independent review that does not include Powell.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports from the comments of current and former members of the Chase Chief Investment Office (CIO), that risk officers at Chase were ignored when they raised issues about the complex trades made by trader Iksil. Iksil's trades had the support of his manager Mr. Macris, and Ms. Drew who was in charge of CIO. The comments also indicate that at one point Mr. Macris brought in a Risk Officer with whom he had worked closely for many years. Risk Officers are supposed to be independent and their concerns seriously heard, with the authority to halt trades that pose excessive risks. Which made this kind of cozy behaviour in the CIO trading offices in London cause for alarm. These reports also say Mr. Braunstein, the new CFO at JP Morgan Chase, did not strengthen controls after he assumed office in 2010. Bank officials disputed this. The New York offices did not fully grasp the complex trades being made in the CIO London offices, and upper management let the CIO operate pretty much on its own, especially with CEO Jamie Dimon's confidence in Ms. Drew's management of the CIO. This led to another gap in the process of risk management. Dimon had other priorities and distractions, from problem mortgages coming with the acquisition of Washington Mutual, pushing back aginst financial regulation after the 2008 crisis, stress tests and others. At the same time the U.S. Federal Reserve, regulators, and Treasury's coordinated effort to merge failing banks with other larger banks- because of the lack of the process of unwinding failed banks provided later under Dodd-Frank legislation- created mega financial banks. Unlike what the U.S. under Treasury Secretary Rubin pushed for in the case of S. Korea during a banking crisis in 1997, Treasury under Geithner and Fed officials did not push for unwinding of failed financial institutions such as Countrywide and Washington Mutual in 2008-2009 Chase's own portfolio of assets under the CIO, increased by an astounding amount from $76 billion in 2007 to $356 billion in 2011. Even if Ms Drew had managed CIO well before, managing a portfolio of this size is most likely to have presented a whole set of new challenges and problems for which the CIO office was not prepared. Similiar concerns were raised by other Fed officials such as Fed governors, Hoenig and Fisher, who raised the issue that such mega-banks posed unacceptable risks and were too big to manage. Pressures to increase investing profits, growing complacency, relaxing risk management controls, led to the situation where a single trader Mr. Iksil, who had only joined the bank in 2007 according to other reports, could create large losses. This follows a situation at UBSin 2011, where a novice trader made bets that resulted in large losses....

LyrArc Article Gist
After the huge crisis the debate about capitalism. What went wrong, and importantly what did not go wrong. Not in the sense of more punditry to place the blame but to ask questions to have a better grasp of the fact and better understanding of the twists and turns of the last decade, the complexities, the frailties, the errors of judgement, and the failings, and the outright falsehoods and ethical breaks. So that the good things are not lost for instance the individual initiative and the bad things are corrected and measures put in place to prevent recurrence and minimize damage. Has the model of anglo-saxon capitalism failed? Actually some specific things failed, deregulation at a time when banks and markets were behaving irresponsibly and without any restraint internal or external, credit ratings agencies failed, financial institutions failed in performing their first line of business which is to finance investment in the economy not in housing and mortgages, and American consumerism failed in that value of saving disappeared and abundance of debt brought American savings to zero, leaving little for investment in the economy and infrastructure except by borrowing from other countries. And living on illusions and not on sound basics the leadership failed thinking that free enterprise and technology and productivity improvements somehow allowed a country or group of countries to live way beyond their means, and a tendency to excess in the popular mood of the country, excesssive consumption, excessive and profligate use of energy which sent trillions of dollars overseas over decades, and excessive expectations of the lower classes for housing and goods beyond their means, all played a part. What did not fail is the freedom to trade, the fall of "barriers to intercourse" between nations, that produced gains on a big scale so that computer and cell phone technology developed in one part of the world quickly spread around the world and the innovations and technology developed in one country spread producing benefits all over the world. It created amood of optimism in developing countries whose incomes rose especially where countries encouraged growth as in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Eastern Europe and pulled hundreds of millons out of poverty. With China, America and Germany in effect shipped technology goods in return for lower value added goods like textiles and shoes, to help China industrialize, and American consumption played a useful part until things reached an extreme and the system was abused by forgetting the basics and allowing excesses and failing to respect ethical responsibilities. Regarding regulation excessive regulation and red tape has proved to be bad as in the license Raj in India which stifled private initiative and new enterprise till it was abandoned in 1990, and no one in India is calling for more regulation. What is bad is to abandon good common sense and to rely on the illusion that no regulation is needed to run a complex financial system like we have today, a laissez fairre libertarian philosophy that was rampant in the Bush administration and in the country's leadership in the Bush years. As a result an underfunded SEC failed to deliver on its basic mission and responsibility, and the lack of a centralized regulatory authority with powers and funding to meet the challenges of modern finance as for instance ineffective derivative regulation under the CFTC, simply aggravated things further. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Italy's prime minister, Mario Monti, a senior EU official before becoming prime minister, has the credibility and credentials to bring the French and German sides together on a new plan forward for the European Union, says Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post. In this report from Rome, where leaders of Italy, Spain, France and Germany are meeting to discuss solutions Pearlstein describes the solutions Monti is putting forward. The European Investment Fund would be built up so that it has funding of about $175 billion or 1% of Europe's GDP to finance truly productivity and growth enhancing projects of innovative small and medium sized business in transportation, energy, education and environmental sectors. These companies have suffered shortages of capital as banks pulled bank from lending. It is the inadequate private investment that is causing the greatest damage in this crisis and $175 billion is at the low end of the amount needed in this crisis. Other steps Monti is pushing forward- for immediate steps to tackle the crisis deposit insurance to prevent a run on banks is essential for European banks. This would come with a eurozone regulatory authority that would have the powers to regulate European banks. The European Financial Stability Facility would be the "sovereign buyer of last resort," under Monti's proposal. Eurobonds come up as a key part of the solution. This is not because German and French taxpayers would be required to finance economies of Spain and Italy. As was shown by the U.S. Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) a well designed program could pay for itself. This would include the EU financial authority taking up stakes in the banks getting help and closing banks that are insolvent. The key point is that if properly executed and executed in a timely and appropriate way this does not have to cost French and German taxpayers- the important thing being to support the eurozone economies before the situation deteriorates. Borrowing at 6% for Spain and Italy will only put the situation out of control as deficits rise rapidly. The concessions for tighter regulation of European banking systems, reducing risk in banking, setting up adequate reserves, closing poorly run banks, and ceding powers to a European Financial Authority that can make the final decisions, are the steps that would have to go with these arrangements. Sound financial management requires that the kind of banking risks taken in the speculative bubbles in Spain, the lack of transparency and credibility in banking estimates of bad loans in the system, and the glossing over the problems at Bankia, would have to be addressed in solutions through regulation by a credible European Financial Authority to convince skeptical German public opinion that financial accounts are conducted in a proper manner....

LyrArc Article Gist
G-20 leaders in Seoul endorsed the Basel III regulations, which raise the amount of risk free capital banks have to hold to 7% of assets from as low as 2% now. The rules are to be phased in between 2013-2018, a long period, by which time there could be another crisis.The rules for banks that are "too big to fail" will be written more stringently by the Financial Stability Board. The FSB will need another year to write these rules. Mario Draghi of the Bank of Italy, heads the FSB. He is asking for more resources for the FSB to do its work.

LyrArc Article Gist
The nomination of Harvard economist Jeremy Stein, who has experience in monetary policy and financial regulation, to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The nomination of Stein was presented to Congress by the Obama administration with the nomination of a Republican, Jay Powell. Powell served in the Bush administration as undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance. Powell has experience in investment banking and private equity. Powell graduated from Georgetown Law School and is now a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Former Fed governor Laurence Meyer's firm, Macroeconomic Advisors, said in a letter to clients that the nominees would significantly help deliberations at the Fed, and bring expertise in areas that the Fed needs to strengthen. Stein's published work has endorsed higher capital standards for banks.

LyrArc Article Gist
Credit Suisse research of loans at 3,550 nonfinancial services companies in India with total borrowing of $385 billion as of March 31, 2011, shows 30% had net debt more than six times current earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. This is an increase of 50% in 5 years. Goldman Sachs estimates gross nonperforming loans including restructured debt will climb up to 6% of total loans in the next financial year. This is an increase from the 5% in March 2011. The Reserve Bank of India's stress test report of Dec. 2011 forecasts 5.8% of non-performing assets in a worst case scenario. This is twice the current level. This is largely a result of Indian banks increasing lending after the 2008 global financial crisis, with the worst affected and leveraged sectors being private airlines, construction companies, utilities and real estate developers. At the same time prudent regulation has ensured a capital to risk-weighted assets ratio according to RBI of 13.5% at the end of March 2011. This compares with the same ratio at 14.5% as of March 2010. Additional risks come from declining economic growth. Industrial output in October 2011 was down 5.1% from the prior year. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Talks on June 28-29 in Rome between President Francois Hollande of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. They will be joined by the Italian and Spanish prime ministers, Mario Monti and Mariano Rajoy. Hollande has invited the opposition Social Democrats in Germany for talks in Paris to win support for his approach to the eurozone crisis. The growth initiative proposed by Hollande is fairly modest and Merkel has expressed her support for this. The tougher issues revolve around some acceptable form of mutualizing of eurozone debt to tackle a loss of confidence in financial markets without a surrender of sovereignty by France and other eurozone nations- a particularly sensitive issue in France. More Europe, would mean more German influence in decisionmaking. Germany rejects eurobonds and direct aid to banks from the ECB. Centralized banking supervision and close regulation by a new European regulatory authority would be needed as part of a new eurozone financial architecture. The immediate issues are of some form of deposit insurance for the eurozone banking system so that there is no run on the banks in Spain and other countries....

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial says AFL-CIO union leader Trumka's questions about the Lew nomination at Treasury are appropriate even though they come 2 years later. The questions relate to clauses in bank contracts that allow accelerated vesting of equity awards for executives who may be likely to join the government- looking towards favorable treatment of the banks by these executives that join the government. In this case it is Citicorp where Treasury Secretary Lew worked before becoming Treasury Secretary. The original Lew employment contract with Citicorp had a bonus guarantee if Lew left the bank for a "high level position with the United States government or regulatory body." The revolving door has a pernicious effect on America's regulatory system especially for financial markets and bank regulation by permitting behavious that would otherwise be discouraged or penalized.

LyrArc Article Gist
How the definition of liquidity itself has changed with liquidity not thought of in terms of assets based concept bu in terms of credit availability for both companies and households. The conversion of nonmarketable assets into marketable assets by securitization has even further eroded this idea of liquidity. With technology, internet and globalized trading the marketable securities with prices create the idea of a liquid asset and create the false belief that credit is easily available and promote risktaking. Quantitative models and computerized trading create the idea that everything is working fine when actually the quantitative models are not good at incorporating risks in the global environment (political, terrorism etc), and not good at pricing securities especially lower quality securities such as the ones that collapsed in the subprime mortgage market. With these structural changes more crises can be expected as the problems they can create such as excessive risktaking are not going to be fixed unless some new comprehensive approach is developed and there is nothing like this in sight. Financial institutions always face the pressures to ignore better judgement and reason in favor of the false security of quantitative risk models because bonuses and higher profits, underperforming earnings and stock price, market share, all these are at stake. So most finacial institutions will opt to join the bandwagon of aggressive lending and investing. The speed with which this subprime crisis reached Europe through the securities carried by European banks and otther financial institutions shows how global trading and computerized models can now affect all global areas quickly. In fact the ECB was early in its response to inject liquidity into the markets in Europe. Kaufman is not happy with the idea that the Fed should be side tracked by these developments from following its own role in ensuring price stability and controlling inflation, or that the Fed should not let market discipline so essential for free markets to operate. The solution in the meantime will involve some dose of regulation and some dose of market discipline....

LyrArc Article Gist
A hard look at the idea of the "Great Moderation" a peiod of stable prosperity that America has enjoyed for 20 or so years with low inflation, stable unemployment and smaller bumps along the road even in recessions such as the one in 1990 and in 2000 which had shorter durations with good rebound. The IMF report on the world economy for September looks at this period of stability and sees a continuation. This report takes a look at the current crises in housing and credit markets and takes a more cautious view wondering if things may be at a turning point where such stable growth cannot be taken as a given. In general the world economy has become more flexible and structural shifts to globalization and the shifts in manufacturing to other parts of the world such as emerging countries have made for a more resilient world economy compared to the economy that faced the oil shocks of the seventies. The three specific causes to which this stable period is attributed are the better handling of monetary policy, the better inventory management with Just in Time and manufacture to order, inventories literally being the shipments that are carried by Fedex or UPS on a particular day, and credit markets securitization of debt packaging it into marketable securities creating a large credit pool so thay companies could have better access to credit. Securtization has suffered because some of the basic rules were broken such as how securities are rated and not because of the basic concept. Have the markets and investors and households taken on more risk in their asset portfolios because of the belief that this period of 'Great Moderation' would simply continue. Its these kinds of behaviour that get tripped up until things get cleared up and return to normal. Is this simply a phase like the prior downturns preceding it that should see a similiar rebound or is it something different. One thing that is noted is that the period of relative prosperity has ocurred as in many countries in Europe and Asia. And the housing markets in many countries in Europe and Asia have also seen rising prices similar to that of the US. Can this turn into a worldwide recessionary situation? Comment made later on April 12, 2008 after the Bear Stearns crisis in March 2008 and the Fed meeting summary describing the downturn as expected to " be protracted and severe", and the emergency measures by the Fed itself made to prevent a possible global financial crisis. In hindsight the 3 reasons for the Great Moderation can be evaluated in this way. The first was the only real one to which researchers attribute about 50% of the Great Moderation, which is the revolution that Just In Time inventories have accomplished for smoothing drops in demand. The second financial innovation proved to be illusory just as mentioned here because it was gamed because the financial houses and other firms were able to get around regulation or the regulations were inadequate and the innovation fell victim to unrestrained greed in the manner mortgage securitization was done. The third wise better monetary policy as mentioned here did not get much credit from researchers and this turns out to be true. Keeping interests rate low was possible because of the disinflationary aspect of globalization specifically manufacturing in China which ended in 2007. Further the success of the US economy made it possible for the US dollar to remain strong and the USA to continue to attract capital for much of this period even while interest rates were low. But its the export of disinflation from China, and no pressures of inflation from globalization through commodities demand for much of this period, that kept inflation low and made it possible for the Fed to keep interest rates low without creating inflationary pressures. Of the three financial innovation and monetary policy may have in them in fact unlike the first Just in Time and information technology, may have in them the seeds of trouble as well as gain if not carefully managed, like fire a good servant but bad master, and this is really what happened in what turns out to be a very human world, greed subverted financial innovation without the necessary appropriate regulation to go with it and the Fed's libertarian instincts and complacency or lack of energetic oversight under a man past eighty years made it lose sight of its need to adjust interest rates to cool off excesses in the market and send appropriate signals to the financial and housing markets. The Economist was slightly ahead of the curve when it makes the observation here that this is likely to be a global housing crisis and a global credit crisis with all the implications of this for global economic growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This is a big desicion by the Obama administration, and has global implications for the amount of oil consumed and the emissions discharged. The Obama administration will introduce one national standard for automile emissions and mileage standards, replacing the patchwork of standards and skipping over the challenges to the California standards by using those standards to set the national rules. The rules take effect in 2012. It will create a new national standard for a car and light truck fleet in the USA, that is 40% cleaner and more fuel efficient by 2016 than it is now, with a new average of 35.5 miles per gallon. The current national standard is 25 miles per gallon, and this standard has fallen way behind the Japanese and the Europeans. The Europeans went through their battles for fuel efficiency a few years ago with auto industry resistance, and this was finally settled with tougher standards, giving the European industry advantages in technology over the Americans. The American car industry stalled higher standards, and what standards were passed were whittled down by heavy lobbying in Congress. As a result a battle raged between those interested in conservation and the environment and the Detroit car industry, especially in a deteriorating global environment for this type of prolific oil consumption on American highways. This lack of foresight on the part of Detroit carmakers, and their management, accelerated their financial collapse in 2008 and 2009, as large car and truck sales collapsed. That this tough new standard of 40% improvement in 2016, would in fact not have been possible without this fiinancial collapse and turning to the government for a bailout - with the entire board of General Motors being replaced- is one of the ironies of this situation. This decision will almost certainly accelerate the development of smaller models, and bring the kind of attention to them that will give them the quality and features and comfort to make them command higher prices and become profitable, as is the case in Europe. For too long the American small car became synonymous with being a lesser car in many dimensions of design, quality, comfort and performance, so that it became a cheap car that you upgraded from to a larger car as you became affluent. It had been that way, but did not have to be that way after the world had changed. And the larger models like the pickup trucks and large cars are more likely to be phased out with the new regulations. This will also bring a `new sanity to oil prices, as the reduced consumption in the US will accomodate the increased consumption in India from the small cars like the Tata Nano which look set to sell in the millions, and still keep oil affordable for tight budgets worldwide. In this sense it is a victory for global good sense. For President Obama this is a personal quest, as he co-sponsored 2 bills in 2006, during this second year in the US Senate, one to raise fuel economy standards, and the other to encourage the use of alternative fuels....

LyrArc Article Gist
Microsoft CEO Brad Smith is taking a different approach with regulators than tech rivals Apple and Google. In this report by WSJ he says that tech is now in the same situation that the financial companies were after the financial misdeeds of 2008 which caused a global financial crisis. Banks had to adapt to the regulation that followed. Tech says Brad Smith will have to do the same after missteps of its own. Better for Microsoft to work proactively with regulators than to stall regulation is Smith'e view.

To do this Smith brings 30 years of experience working with Microsoft and seven as president. During this time he had extensive interface with regulators and government, so that he brings more experience in this field than his peers at Google or Apple. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economst cites an IMF June 2012 paper by Arcand, Berkes and Panizza that shows private borrowing and size of bank balance sheets once it reaches 100% of GDP begins to slow growth. A second paper by Cecchei and Enisse Kharroubi at the Bank for International Settlements confirms this showing that at low levels private borrowing and expansion of bank balance sheets increases economc growth, but at high levels exceeding 100% of GDP a large financial system actually hurts economic growth. Andy Haldane of the Bank of England points out the fact that for the century to 1970 bank assets increased by an average of 0.6% a year faster than GDP in 14 large economies, but increased much faster after this with ratio of assets to GDP increasing by about 3 percentage points a year. Bank assets increased from 50% of GDP in the 1960's to about 200% of GDP by 2007, reaching 500% of GDP in Britain, 800% of GDP in Switzerland, and 126% in the U.S. The increase in world trade accentuated this period with trade increasing from 22% of global GDP to 33% in the period 1996-2008, and banking following this trend across borders to developing countries. At the same time excesses caused an imbalance with hyper growth in bank balance sheets through taking on more leverage and banking risks. The Economist sees this process going back in reverse as bank balance sheets shrink in the face of regulation and efforts for financial stability following the 2008 global financial crisis....

LyrArc Article Gist
S. Korea's household debt is now 155% of GDP, according to the OECD. For the last ten years the household debt is growing at 13 percent, double the rate of GDP growth. Korea was not affected to the same extent as other countries by the 2008 financial crisis. As a result household debt continues to grow rapidly. The household debt to disposable income reached 140% in the U.S. before the 2008 financial crisis, according to the IMF. Spain reached a level of 130% before the crisis, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. The Financial Services Commission in S. Korea has taken steps to control this- by imposing limits on bank lending, tighter credit checks by banks, and incentives for shifting to fixed rate mortgages. About 95% of mortgages in S. Korea are adjustable rate mortgages. Housing loan rules in S. Korea require loans to not exceed half of the value of the house, and annual payments of principal and interest cannot exceed 40% of the owners income. This effectively insulates the banks from the effects of a housing bubble. One of the effect of the 1997 financial crisis in S. Korea when it turned to the IMF for assistance, is the relaxing of controls on interest rates to encourage spending in a country that encouraged saving. The result is the growth of a nonbank sector which is not subject to central government regulation by the Financial Supervisory Service. The non-banks are regulated only by local governments and can charge upto 39% compared to 4-6% at banks. Non-banks are also allowed to turn in their licenses and operate charging even higher rates. Each year about a 1000 nonbanks from 18,500 such banks in 2007 are joining the black market according to the Consumer Loan Finance Association, showing the size of the problem of black market lending to low income borrowers. S. Korea has mostly relied on growing GDP to control the situation, but slowing growth could lead to unsustainable levels of household debt....

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 global financial crisis is expected to reshape the direction of globalization. Western finance will be re-regulated. Second as concerns about food security take prominence in countries like India and China inflation and how it affects food prices will result in governments taking an active role in this area. Thirs America will lose economic clout and intellectual authority. Emerging economies like Inida, China, Brazil and Russia and other countries are having a large influence on the direction of global trade now this will also extend to global finance. But even after the re-regulation of finance in western countries and changes also in emerging countries that are seen as necessary in the light of the global crisis, the global economy will still find the model of markets if carefully done and respect for individual initiative with a proper role of government but limited role, he attractive model to follow. Easterly comments on this for developing countries. See the link.

LyrArc Article Gist
How Elizabeth Warren, a Professor at Harvard Law School, influenced economic advisor Summers and President Obama in their decision to form a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. She met with Summers recently and they have known each other for a long time at Harvard University. Warren has spoken up for consumers, and written several books and articles on the subject of protecting consumers, credit and economic stress. She was the chief advisor to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission and chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel which acted as a watchdog over the TARP program. Ms. Warren says she first got the idea of a financial products agency while researching a 2003 book about middle class families who did well on one income, but now were having a difficult time coping with two incomes. She made the point that it wasn't overspending by many families that was to blame but poorly designed financial products. In 2007 she wrote an article in the journal Democracy about this idea of an agency to protect consumers of financial products. She says overhauling the regulation of financial products is necessary not only to help consumers make good decisions, but also help "make the market work." And she adds that the market "has been badly regulated" through a system of seven federal agencies, each of which has jurisdiction over some aspect of consumer financial products. See the other link in the WSJ of June 20, 2009, by Jason Zweig, which talks about the influence of a friend of Obama at University of Chicago Law School, Prof Sunstein, on the formation of a Consumer Protection Agency. Sunstein, and Thaler, a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, wrote a book "Nudge" which shows the impact of psychology and the behavioural element in decisions made by consumers. Sunstein and Thaler express the idea that there are advantages in having standard products that cannot lie to consumers, and are based on the "fair-dealing, openness and transparency" the President emphasized. They act as an anchor for all other products, which are compared to these products. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein touches on the main issues raised by Obama's regulatory reform proposals. A thorough and independent analysis by a panel of seasoned regulators and independent experts would have done better, Pearlstein says. It would take more time, but the regulatory reforms need to be thorough, considering the damage that has been done to the financial system, and considering the opportunity to do something serious about this. It would have also shielded the administration from criticism if tough action was needed in some areas. Hearing all sides of the matters at hand, and weighing the pros and the cons on each issue is helpful, but there are gaps in this approach when some of the key actors like Geithner and Summers have worked too closely in the past with the financial firms that are being regulated, and may have a tendency and bias in that direction. The President's lack of expertise in these areas, and a desire to keep the regulatory hand as light as possible, and intense obying by financial firms, can tilt things away from serious regulatory reform. The danger is that the opportunity to fix things with major structural changes where necessary, and some tough actions where needed may be lost. Some of the obvious gaps are mentioned by Pearlstein. There is no measure to tackle the situation with the ratings agencies. There will be more transparency than before but complex derivative trading can take place prettty much like before. Credit default swaps will continue as before. If you set up acouncil of regulators, then why not bite the bullet and consolidate them into a single agency, asks Pearlstein? Banks will continue to have their proprietary trading desks, from where they ran up huge losses, these act like in-house hedge funds. Ultimately a lot depends on who is running these agencies, or the Fed, and what is the prevailing opinion about markets in the country. The prevailing opinion that the less regulation the better for free markets, and the lack of independent regulators, and poor appointments, had a lot to do with the capture of the regulatory agencies by the the firms they were supposed to regulate. And on this point the President is on safer ground, as he can ensure that he appoints tough regulators and create a new culture that puts regulation right where it should be, as a necessary ingredient for free markets, just like rules of the road. And in one area the President has created a new structure, a new agency with powers- this is where consumer protections are at stake- so that the abuses that took place with mortgages do not take place....

LyrArc Article Gist
For years the WSJ opinion editorials pointed out weaknesses in Fannie Mae and Fredddie Mac, and the possibility that the Government may have to bail out these companies because of their aggressive expansion and lack of adequate supervision oversight by the government or supervisory financial authorites. This time may have arrived as the 2 companies are the only ones left actively dominating the mortgage market, handling 80% of all mortgages bought by investors in the 1st quarter this year just as Wall Street retreated. This 80% is more than double their share of the market in 2006. But their combined cushion is $83 billion, capital required by regulators. And this supports a huge $ 5 trillion in debt and other financial committments. They suffered $9 billion in losses in 2006, and they are sitting on $19 billion in additional losses which have not beeen acknowledged according to analysts. These companies operate under an imbalanced arrangement where the ownership is by investors but the guarantees are from the government and the supervisory oversight is incomplete, with Congress not having authority over them. The regulators not having the authority or the charter to conduct adequate surveillance and supervision, and controls. The companies raised $13 billion from investors last year and regulatory filings show that they have $7 billion above required minimums for a safety net. But like many things in the financial system today these minimums set in another time and place may be entirely unsuited to the risks they are taking, and their is no effective supervision or controls in place. This is exactly what lays the situation ripe for a financial crisis if foreclosures throughout the country create huge losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that this safety net is just both unsuited and never designed to handle for the situation today. And it takes too long for a lame duck administration or Congress without effective leadership in an election year to correct the regulatory errors in the Fannie Mae Freddie Mae situation- the lack of effective controls, regulation, and the lack of clear powers and authority of a financial supervisory authority over them....

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
A former president of the Bank of China International's U.S. office describes the rampant shadow bank lending that is happening in China. The People's Bank of China (PBOC) and the China Bank Regulatory Authority (CBRC) is aware of this activity and regulations are in place to prevent such lending. Yet much of this lending continues as property developers and local governments devise new ways to get around these rules. The PBOC and the CBRC have no precise handle on nonbank sources of lending such as money from state owned enterprises and are not able to control the huge increase in credit and speculative uses of capital. And they have to struggle with local governments and the National Development and Reform Commission which support higher spending and credit levels. As a result there is a sense of a financial system that is out of control and building up risks whose precise nature and size are hard to calculate, even for China's senior leadership.