LyrArc Article Gist
UK Reform Party has taken large donations from cryptocurrency companies. Reform leader Nigel Farage has received a 5 million pound gift from a cryptocurrency firm. What does this mean for cryptocurrency regulation in the UK as a world financial center, if Reform wins a general election and appoints the next Governor of the Bank of England when Andrew Bailey retires in 2028. This is discussed in The Guardian. The banking system of the US, UK and large countries was set up over many years and currency is only issued by a central bank with the financial backing of the nation. Cryptocurrency cannot on the basis of technology take that role without posing risks and destabilizing the financial system. The gradual splitting of society by the information economy, neglect of infrastructure, pharmaceutical pricing, banking speculation as in 2009 crisis, have been eroding some of the basic structures of democracy for the last two decades from within.  The wars in the Middle East policies, and the open borders migration policies, were effects from outside. What this has led to is counter to what one would expect. To fight open borders and the marginalization of some parts of the working class DJT Republicans have used whatever resources were available at the time in the 2024 presidential election. The cryptocurrency firms used this in opportunistic fashion to affect regulation of this currency by supporting the reelection bid of DJT in 2024 by making large donations. This has led to less regulation of cryptocurrency firms. Is this in the best interests of the Nation? Will this destabilize the banking system in ways that have happened before in the deregulation of banks before the 2009 financial crisis? In Britain a new Bank of England governor will be appointed after Andrew Bailey's term expires in 2028. Reform party in UK if elected as government would appoint the next Governor of the Bank of England. Reform's growing popularity is a result of Conservatives and Labour failing to take action on open borders, asylum hotels, and migration policy, following an ECHR code of rights that is inappropriate to such migration. What this means is that unexpected things happen as a result. Cyrptocurrency risks of destabilizing the banking system increase as a result of failure of parties on migration. This could be more destabilizing for Britain because of its role as a financial centre than the industrialized  economies such as Germany, China, and industrializing economies such as India. It poses risks in the US yet Federal Reserve Governor Walsh can exercise his own judgement about cryptocurrency and Congress can exercise oversight, the large banks can act to show the risks of destabilizing that cryptocurrency can pose. For Britain it is particularly dangerous as the US is also an industrialized power compared to Britain's focus on finance alone. Andrew Bailey can ignore lobbying by Reform Party in 2026 (Farage met with the Governor of the Bank of England), yet what happens if Reform appoints the next Governor in 2028? These are questions Britain needs to ponder. It is also why Andy Burnham is Britain's last chance to get things right on migration to the point that the British people feel good and proud of their heritage and history, British neighborhoods across the country feel safe and secure, and Britain shifts to reindustrialize its economy with partners in China and India, the European Union, and the US. A former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Charlie Bean told the BBC about donations of Christopher Harbonne, who has a 13% ownership interest in cryptocurrency firm,Tether. "Stablecoins are only stable if they have the appropriate regulatory environment… But there is right now an unsurprising regulatory race to the bottom amid the potential for greater profits." He added: "When funds are coming from major shareholders of such large financial institutions, there is a clear potential conflict of interest here, for example, in the appointment of a new Bank of England governor. Transparency is one solution." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Big banks in the US post big increases in profit and revenue in 2023. Chase bank posted 52% increase in first quarter 2023 profit and record revenue. Chase attracted $50 billion in deposits from midsized banks. The problems at midsized banks, including collapse of SVB bank, have not affected the large banks. Depositors shifted deposits from midsized banks to larger banks. The Fed's sharp increase in interest rates to 4.75%-5.0% from about zero% in 2021 have increased bank margins as interest rates on deposits have not been increased as much. The glut in deposits means banks could keep depositor interest rates lower. The result is that America's banking system is in strong shape during a localized banking crisis affecting startups and Silicon Valley.

LyrArc Article Gist
A relatively minor situation, a mobile phone she reported stolen that was found in 2013, led to her being removed as the youngest cabinet member Minister for Transport in just 4 months in 2024. Before that she was Shadow Minister for Transport under Starmer. In those 4 months she ended a train drivers strike with a 14% pay raise over 3 years. She was elected as MP for Sheffield in 2015 at the age of 27 years having worked under senior MP Lisa Nandy. Educated at a private school in Sheffield, and studying at London School of Economics before switching to Nottingham University to study politics, there is something unusual about Louise Haigh in the way she handled the firing in just 4 months, for what was something inconsequential like reporting a mobile as lost, without any additional information from Starmer's administration. She did not let it affect her in the least, moving to work in the Labour parliamentary backbenches and rebuilding the Tribune Group to discuss ideas for solving problems in UK transport, health, inequalities, lack of investment. She had already come to know Metro mayors in UK as Shadow Transport Minister, including Burnham at Manchester. From that time in 2024 to 2026 may be considered one of the most transformative period of any English MP in modern history. Louise Haigh, and Lucy Powell MP and deputy leader of the Labour party who was also demoted by Starmer, worked together in the backbenches in a revolt against the welfare cuts made by chancellor Rachel Reeves that gradually destroyed the credibility of Starmer with the backbenches of the Labour party and the British working class. By the time of the controversy surrounding Starmer's chief of staff, a young man Morgan McSweeney, who had little experience except in organizing Labour primarily against Jeremy Corbyn to bring back Blair's diluted version of Labour -which had lost relevance after Conservatives failed to deliver much beyond decades of austerity years for Britain. Labour had to find a good voice and a plan, and quickly as the 2 years of Starmer led to Reform UK coming back to challenge Labour, winning big in local elections. This is where Louise Haigh and Lucy Powell come in. Louise Haigh was going to have none of it. She realized that Andy Burnham was the leader who could take Labour to heights that it had not seen since in post war period after 1945. That conviction led her to run the Makerfield election campaign for Burnham to get a seat in parliament and challenge Starmer for leadership of Labour. Without Louise Haigh and Lucy Powell, who is now Education Secretary and Deputy leader of Labour Party, Burnham may well not be the Prime Minister today. Haigh, says this BBC Report, wrote 2 Essays articulating the fight against a stagnant economy.  Where Rachel Reeves stuck to no longer relevant debt rules for a bold plan out of the economic mess, Haigh called for a significant loosening of Labour's debt rules, with the rolling five-year debt target extended to over 10 years as a start, bold investments, and a call to "re-examine the mandate" of the Bank of England so that the focus would be on growth and reviving Britain. Haigh supported Burnham for a new tax on the value of land to replace stamp duty on house purchases. "The status quo is not sustainable. We cannot afford to wait any longer before we change the system we inherited." It is this boldness that has led to Louise Haigh being put in charge of the newly created Office of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, "the main driver for the British economy." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Create small, more transparent financial institutions out of the big banks by breaking these big banks up and selling them to private equity. These big banks are too big to save, too big to manage, andprone to taking excessive risk, thus damaging the economy. Craft policy and antitrust laws so that no financial firms become too large, as this has been proven to create risks for the whole economy. Do this by dividing banks up regionally or by type of business. TARP simply contimues the old game of big banks and financial institutions. These are the views of Paul Krugman and Simon Johnson presented to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on April 21, 2009. Also on the panel Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig who said policy measures have focussed too heavily on propping up big institutions like AIG.

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Eavis says the too big to fail problem remains unsolved, and with the recent consolidation the "big four" accounting for 70% of all assets held by domestically cahrtered banks. There is no effort by the Obama administration to prevent banks from getting too big. And the Fed has accumulated greater powers as a regulator. It is still the same Fed, Eavis reminds one that failed as abank regulator by letting Citigroup's common equity ratios drop to perilous lows. And its overstimulative monetary policies having built up more risk than the system could handle. There will be more regulatory capital at these big banks as a result of actions by Treasury, but risk remains.

LyrArc Article Gist
Sanford Weill built Citigroup into a mega bank through repeated acquisitions. He was the strongest voice for the repeal of the Depression era Glass Steagall Act banning banks from risk taking activities in investment banking. The Glass Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, and repeal legislation was given the name of "Citigroup Authorization Act." On July 23, 2012, Weill told CNBC: "I am suggesting that they (the big banks) be broken up so that the taxpayer will never be at risk, the depositors won't be at risk... Mistakes were made." Weill said that the housing bubble and the financial crisis has proved that the repeal was a mistake.

LyrArc Article Gist
Bloomberg View says it is important for the living wills for U.S. banks that are "too big to fail" to be ready by the end of August 2011. This is required under the Dodd-Frank legislation. The living wills are designed to provide the government and the FDIC with an orderly pathway for winding down the business of a bank. On August 8, 2011, when the Dow Jones Averages dropped by 634 points, shares of Bank of America and Citigroup led the decline. Bloomberg points out that investors think Bank of America's net worth is only one third of what the bank claims, and for Citigroup this is less than half. Investors view the stocks of these banks as risky because they are likely to need to raise fresh capital and this would dilute the value of existing shares.

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh's views on the need for greater transparency and disclosure from the large U.S. banks and the risks to the financial system from "too-big-to-fail" banks in 2012-2013. He says the U.S. should not be dependent on the Basel standards for capital requirements and use its own system of stricter requirements similiar to the UK and Switzerland. His views are that the Dodd-Frank law puts too much dependence on regulators doing the right thing, information transparency is lacking for markets to impose discipline, and delegates too much to Basel standards which are not rigorous enough for protecting the U.S. economy.

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....

LyrArc Article Gist
Sheila Bair, former head of the U.S. FDIC, points out flaws in the rules for capital adequacy ratios and risk weighted assets which allow banks to increase their capital adequacy ratios. The ratios show the financial strength of the banks and their ability to absorb losses, which makes their accurate calculation very important for the safety of the U.S. banking system, especially with large "too big to fail" banks. Bair says the 2013 U.S. Fed stress tests showed Bank of America as having a capital adequacy ratio of 11.4%, when it should actually be 7.8% without the risk weighted adjustment. The mortgage banking crisis showed how the risk wieighting can be flawed and give a distorted representation of the acutal risks facing the banks in its assets. For Morgan Stanley the 2013 stress tess by the U.S. Fed showed the capital adequacy ratio at 14%, taking out the risk weighting adjustment this drops to 7%. Bair says its not the idea of risk weighting that is the problem, but the way it is applied- for example considering sovereign government bonds in the eurozone as zero risk, or that only 20% of the accounting value of debt one banks buys from another bank is to be taken into account in setting the ratio. Go back to the drawing board she says, it makes no sense that Citibank debt be shown as having one fifth risk of IBM's. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, has a three part proposal for tackling the "too big to fail" problem and concentration of 70% of the U.S. banking assets in a few banks. It calls for Market Discipline to be exercized in a way that the Dodd-Frank legislation fails to do. This is to be accomplished by having deposit insurance and the Fed's discount window apply only to traditional commercial banks, not the nonbank affiliates and parent holding companies. Customers, creditors and counterparties of all nonbank affiliates and the parent holding companies would be asked to sign a disclosure accepting that there is no government guarantee. In addition the largest financial holding companies would be restructured so that all their corporate entities would fall under a speedy bankruptcy process. Fisher does not clarify how he would do this restructuring. The Fisher idea come after changes in the banking industry through internal management restructuring following trading losses, legal settlements and the passage of a Swiss referendum called the Minder Initiative on compensation. Fisher suggests the U.S. Fed and regulatory authorites in other countries should push for further restructuring and calls for action beyond the limited results from 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. He is critical of Dodd-Frank's often ambiguous and lengthy worded legislation- 849 pages for the law and 9000 pages for the regulations written to implement the law. Fisher emphasizes the point that its hard to implement a law and enforce rules when its not clear and is difficult to understand....

LyrArc Article Gist
The revised AIG rescue plan helps banks recover some of their losses on collateralized debt obligations and helps AIG by cancelling the credit default swaps it wrote on these CDO's, and thus helps shore up the financial system. This is what happened. During the boom period banks bought protection from the insurer AIG on securities backed by now-troubled mortgage assets. These securities are called CDO's or collateralized debt obligations backed by subprime mortgage bonds, commercial mortgage loans and other assets. Banks in the US, and Europe bought credit default swaps on these securities from AIG, and AIG promises to compensate them if the securites default. Now with the housing and the credit crisis the values of these CDO's plummet, banks go to AIG and AIG has to provide them collateral to help cover these losses of the banks. AIG ends up giving $35 billion in collateral to the banks including Goldman, Merrill, UBS, Deutsche Bank and others. The continuing fall in value of the CDO's meant AIG had to give more and more collateral to the banks leaving AIG severly exposed, which is along with other problems on its accounting books when the government stepped in in early October to bailout AIG with loans, with interest rates that became punitive for AIG leaving it in a struggling condition. What does the new revised plan do. It eases conditions on the interest rates and the New York Fed puts $30 billion of its money to buy the multisector CDO's at market prices averaging 50 cents to the dollar and AIG provides an additional $5 billion. With than one action banks get to recover their $35 billion and AIG gets to cancell its credit default swaps on these CDO's, in effect freeing AIG from thses swaps that were creating a hemorrhaging effect as it had to keep posting more and more collateral to banks, and banks got to recover the money on CDO's. In effect helping shore up the financial system. There are other problems at AIG but this was the biggest and most draining, and it helps AIG protect its other businesses, and banks get to put this dismal chapter behind them. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Warren Stephens, head of Stephens Inc, in Little Rock, Arkansas, says repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was a mistake. U.S. banks should have a 5% cap on holdings of total deposits in the U.S., and no "grandfathering" of banks over the 5% limit. Five institutions controlling 50% of the deposits in the U.S. creates too much systemic risk in another financial crisis. Banks should be expected to be one or the other, commercial banks or investment banks, not both. These recommendations are not new. Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, called for breaking up the largest banks or shrinking the size of the largest banks during the global financial crisis in 2008. This position for banks that are smaller in size is supported by veteran bankers Paul Volcker, Thomas Hoenig and other experts.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the Financial Times says during a time when income distribution in the US no longer works it is important not to repeat the mistakes made under Clinton and Obama. Biden's appointment of Omarova as Comptroller of the Currency is an effort by Biden to set a new direction. Omarova has considered the direct placing of digitally transferred dollars into the accounts of people in the US who have fallen behind in her paper "The People's Ledger." This is seen as an effort by Biden to get back to an America that works for ordinary Americans.

Anything less would be disastrous for Democrats and even some Republicans politically. A big part of the problem is that financial institutions and markets left to themselves no longer allocate capital in productive or even understandable ways that help the American people.

LyrArc Article Gist
Australia's Productivity commission states in a report that 4 large banks control 75% of the lending, deposit and credit card business leading to higher fees for consumers. Profit margins of Australian banks are some of the highest in the world. The report says stability should not be the only goal for banks.

LyrArc Article Gist
Anat Admati, is a professor of finance and economics at Stanford University School of Business. He says banks should depend on generating 30% of their assets from equity, something the banking industry of today in the U.S. and Europe considers heretical. More of the bank's assets should come from equity and much less from borrowed funds. Outside of banking healthy corporations in the U.S. carry debt at about 70% of assets and there is no reason banks should not do the same. In 2013 says Admati, the situation is not much different from that after the 2008 global financial crisis- large banks carry liabilities and debt at over 90% of their assets. The $2.2 trillion in debt at JP Morgan Chase bank is about 91% of assets of $2.4 trillion. Basel III regulations allow banks to borrow upto 95% of assets, and proposed banking regulations in the U.S. put this at 95%, with the way this is measured still being debated. At such high levels of debt the margin of error is small, and systemic risk which is high in a globally interconnected banking system means the whole banking system can freeze from one large bank going into failure such as Lehman Brothers. This happened in 2008 and the margin of error is still small, which is why global banking is such a high wire act with the U.S. Federal Reserve, the ECB and other central banks issuing regular warnings and regulators faced with the task of keeping the banking system in check through vigilance and investigations of banks violating laws. How much difference has Dodd-Frank legislation in the U.S. made after 2008? Jason from Atlanta says in response to Admati's article, that the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was 37 pages and the banking system did not freeze up in the way it did in 2008 for the rest of the twentieth century until its repeal. The 879 page Dodd-Frank legislation of 2011 is overly voluminous and still leaves 243 rules to be written by regulators in consultation with the financial industry. Banks are larger now than they were in 2008 and have an outsized influence in shaping the rules, leaving the U.S. Federal Reserve's supervisory committee and Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo with the job of somehow keeping banks out of trouble. JP Morgan Chase, Admati reminds readers, has $2.4 trillion in assets as of June 30, 2013, and debts of $2.2 trillion, with $1.2 trillon in deposits and $ 1 trillion in other debt owed to money market funds, other banks, bondholders and the like. ...

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.     ...