volcker

Banks’ ‘Principle’ Trades May Escape Volcker Rule

by The Huffington Post on March 22, 2011

Huffington Post…

For at least one aspect of Goldman Sachs’ operations, it may be business as usual after the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is implemented. Bank of America analyst Guy Moszkowski, who met with four Goldman executives in Hong Kong on Monday, published a note to investors saying Goldman will continue making “principle investments” — longer-term direct purchases of securities, companies and property assets — under the assumption that the practice is not in violation of the Volcker rule, a provision of the Dodd-Frank bill intended to limit the ability of taxpayer-backed banks to make trades with their own money, Bloomberg reports. The Volcker rule explicitly bans banks from short-term trading of securities on their own behalf, but the restrictions do not seem to apply to princple investments, which are made over longer terms. The principle investment loophole was first noted in November, when the Financial Times reported that American banks had found a way to continue betting their own money through certain types of trades. Volcker himself expressed concern about the practice at the time, the Wall Street Journal reported : Mr. Volcker’s concern, according to several people familiar with the matter, is that narrow or prescriptive rules would invite gamesmanship on the part of banks and could allow firms to evade the rule’s intent. Already, some banks and their lobbyists are seeking to sway regulators and encourage them to narrowly define certain types of trading activities, according to government officials. At a congressional hearing earlier this year, Mr. Volcker said regulators should adopt a Potter Stewart-like approach to determine what runs afoul of the law, referring to the former Supreme Court justice who said of pornography, “I know it when I see it.” Mr. Volcker’s version: “Bankers know what proprietary trading is and is not. Don’t let them tell you any different.” Since the Volcker rule was first proposed, Paul Volcker has been emphatic that his namesake rule be as airtight as possible. But even before financial reform passed, Volker was already “disappointed” by some of the compromises made, as The New Yorker ‘s John Cassidy reported last year. Read the full piece at Bloomberg here for more detail on Goldman’s investment.

Here is the original post:
Banks’ ‘Principle’ Trades May Escape Volcker Rule

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Obama Losing Key Economic Adviser

by on January 21, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama announced on Thursday that former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was stepping down from his role as head of an outside panel advising the White House on economic policy. “From his bold vision around how to reform our financial system to his thoughtful insight on how to make our economy work for working families again, Paul brought his brilliance and vast experience to bear on a host of difficult challenges,” Obama said in a statement. “I will always be grateful to Paul Volcker for his service as the head of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board,” Obama said. Reuters reported earlier this month that Volcker intended to leave the advisory board in February. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read more:
Obama Losing Key Economic Adviser

Robert Lenzner: Volcker Says U.S. Economic and Political Influence Globally Is Waning

December 1, 2010

There were disturbingly blunt and devastatingly negative thoughts about the current economic and political condition of the U.S. spoken by Paul Volcker, chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, last night at a Common Cause dinner in New York. He singled out the danger facing the U.S. if the dollar no longer retains its role as a global benchmark. “The growing question is whether the exceptional role of the dollar can be maintained,” he said to civic leaders gathered to honor Volcker’s friend and office-mate, Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch. “It’s hard to call what’s going on a financial system,” the former Fed chairman charged in his keynote address. “Where can the leadership of the global financial system come from?” Volcker asked in a pointed way. Not from Europe, which is trying hard to save its currency, he added. Nor from Japan, “which is caught in two decades of economic stagnation and political uncertainty.” As for the U.S., Volcker chose to emphasize a recent poll that showed only 20 percent of Americans believe the government will do the right thing to turn around the nation. The U.S., emphasized Volcker, has “lost its relative economic strengths and the coherence of its governing model” which has been emulated for so long. The U.S., Volcker said, is “underperforming as an economy and suffering from a divisive political climate.” Yet, China and India, Volcker seemed to suggest, these new economic powers, are not ready yet to assume the mantle of leadership in the global economy. “If ever there were a need for clear-headed, confident leadership, nationally and internationally, that time is now,” Volcker said in a pointed way.

Read the full article →

Video: Bank of America May Cut More Than 20 Prop Trading Jobs: Video

September 29, 2010

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. bank, is eliminating between 20 and 30 proprietary trading jobs to comply with Volcker rule limits on banks trading their own capital, according to a person briefed on the decision. Bloomberg’s Christine Harper reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Paul Volcker Slams ‘Broken’ Financial System, Banks, Regulators

September 24, 2010

Paul Volcker pulled no punches Thursday in a speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, criticizing nearly all aspects of the nation’s financial system, which he said is “broken.” The former chairman of the Fed and current chairman of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board had harsh words for banks, regulators, business schools and the larger economy. According to the Wall Street Journal , Volcker improvised the remarks, having decided not to read his prepared speech. He called for “structural changes in markets and market regulation.” Investment banks, he said, according to the WSJ , have become “trading machines instead of investment banks [leading to] encroachment on the territory of commercial banks, and commercial banks encroached on the territory of others in a way that couldn’t easily be managed by the old supervisory system.” The “Volcker Rule,” which was billed as a key component of the recent Dodd-Frank financial reform act, was designed to limit banks’ ability to use taxpayer-backed funds to make investments on their own behalf. But the final version of the rule, after being subjected to lobbying and compromise, was weaker than Volcker had intended. He told The New Yorker he was “a little pained that it doesn’t have the purity I was searching for.” His critique Thursday didn’t stop with investment banks, according to the WSJ . Central banks, he said, became “maybe a little too infatuated with their own skills and authority.” A problem with regulation, he said, is that it relies on human judgment. He also bemoaned regulators’ lack of perceived authority, saying that a financier might tell a regulator, “We know more about banking and finance than you do, get out of my hair.” As Bloomberg reported, Volcker said the mortgage system is “absolutely broken,” and is the most pressing problem in the current economic situation. “It’s going to take a long time to repair the basic disequilibrium in the economy,” he added.

Read the full article →

Why Wall Street Donors Are Abandoning Obama: Andrew Ross Sorkin

August 31, 2010

But what is surprising is that some of the president’s biggest supporters have so publicly derided his policies, even at the risk of hurting their ability to influence the party in the future. Issues like the carry-interest tax on private equity or the Volcker Rule have become personal. Why so personal? The prevailing view is that bankers, hedge fund mangers and traders supported the Obama candidacy because he appealed to their egos.

Read the full article →

Jeff Madrick: Weak Financial Regulation Is Further Defanged

August 26, 2010

I sure hope somebody is going to notice the fine piece on the front page of Thursday’s New York Times about how easy it is to get around the Volcker rule. Remember how the Obama team that came up with its reregulation proposals seemed to push Paul Volcker aside? The former Federal Reserve chairman was supposed to be running a committee on the subject for the president, but even he let it be known no one was talking to him much. Volcker was concerned that commercial banks were using insured depositor money to make risky investments and to drive huge bonuses — and the Fed and the FDIC would be left picking up the pieces. The system should not be bearing that much risk, he wisely figured. And to be fair, he had long felt this way. After an earlier front page Times piece by Lou Uchitelle on Volcker’s concerns , Obama suddenly embraced a limitation on such trading — the Volcker rule. There were many Volcker photo ops. There would now be a ceiling on what trading could be done for the banks’ proprietary accounts — its own assets. The Dodd-Frank bill embraced the idea. Problem solved. No way, of course. The trouble is, banks have been trading for their own accounts to one degree or other for decades while making markets for their customers. In the late 1970s and early 1980s in particular, they first discovered they could generate big profits if they bought extra securities (or derivatives) at propitious times under the guise of keeping inventory to facilitate trades of their investors and corporate clients. They could also hedge their positions by selling. In truth, it wasn’t even a disguise. They gambled money, but like all market makers, they had an insider’s edge. And they made fortunes. Some of the investment bankers, in particular, loved the traders who took the big risks. Of course, occasionally, they lost big — and some of the losers made headlines. But mostly they made out like bandits. Over time, the lucrative practice was moved to the “proprietary” desks. That’s where Howie Hubler lost nine billion dollars in a mammoth mortgage transaction for Morgan Stanley, as reported by Michael Lewis in The Big Short . I was never clear why the press didn’t make more of that after Lewis divulged the unpublicized catastrophe. No one ever lost that much money on a trading desk before. Once not long ago, if you lost $200 million it was a scandal. Now Nelson Schwartz and Erich Dash have put their finger on what seemed to be hidden from view. The banks do a lot of this all the time, and they are doing it big-time again, the reporters found out. As they quote one consultant, “You can use client activity as a cover for basically anything you are doing.” And the fact is that they do, and have done so for a long time. As the Times reporters write, “For all the talk of shutting down trading desks and reassigning employees to prepare for the Volcker Rule, proprietary-style trading will probably survive, if under a different name.” So much for the Volcker rule. And the great man himself (that is, Volcker) never came to grips with this immense hole in the regulations, either. High risk on Wall Street will go on. Meantime, Sheila Bair found it necessary to argue in this week’s Financial Times that stronger capital requirements will make the financial system better — that is, help allocate capital where it is actually needed and useful. She apparently feels she has to defend higher capital requirements against influential complaints coming from the powerful financial community that they will undermine lending and raise interest rates. Yes, and regulations to limit oil spills will raise gas prices, higher wages will undermine corporate profitability and capital investment, and product safety standards will limit the number of toys parents can buy for their kids. Industry goes on and on. As if, suggests Bair, the earlier inadequate capital requirements resulted in no financial or social cost. Consider the credit crisis and the recessionary aftermath. The financial reregulation package was never strong enough, but the battle to make work even what was passed, will go on. Nothing is quite so irksome as the financial community talking about how little TARP cost taxpayers as banks paid back their bailouts. First, TARP should probably have made money, like Warren Buffett will on the money he lent Wall Street. But second, the big cost is severe and ongoing recession resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars of lower federal tax revenues for years, unemployment rates near ten percent, and weak capital spending. Let’s keep straight how much financial excess has and will continue to cost America. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Plans To Spin Off Proprietary Trading: CNBC

August 4, 2010

Goldman Sachs is “seriously considering spinning off its proprietary trading unit” according to CNBC’s Kate Kelly. The group plans to do so to comply with the Volcker Rule, which bars banks from making certain speculative investments with their own money as opposed to a customer’s. The rule is part of the financial reform legislation passed last month. When news broke several prop traders were being moved to asset management at Goldman Sachs, our own Ryan Grim reported that “the law does allow firms to trade a small amount of taxpayer-backed capital for their own profit, fueling fears that banks would use the leeway to continue to trade large positions.” He quoted a Democratic aide who advocated putting those fears aside, “the mere fact that the firms are putting people in asset management is a good sign, not a bad one. The talk about loopholes and weak Volcker Rule is really just uninformed.” We will be updating the story throughout the day.

Read the full article →

Prop Traders Being Reassigned In Wake Of Volcker Rule

July 28, 2010

A Fox Business report on Tuesday evening made backers of the Volcker Rule nervous that big banks had already found a way to trade taxpayer-backed money for their own profit in opposition to the intention of the new law. A closer look, however, at recent moves by major banks shows that they appear to be complying with the law for now. From Fox Business: Goldman Sachs (GS: 147.93 ,+0.84 ,+0.57%) has figured out a novel approach to getting around the Volcker Rule’s restrictions on trading: it’s remaking its risk-taking traders into asset managers, and the rest of Wall Street may soon follow, FOX Business Network has learned. The big Wall Street firm has moved about half of its “proprietary” stock-trading operations — which had made market bets using the firm’s own capital — into its asset management division, where these traders can talk to Goldman clients and then place their market bets. The move is designed to exploit a loophole in the Volcker Rule, part of the recently signed financial-reform legislation named after presidential economic adviser and former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker. Business Insider then picked up the story: It seems like Goldman isn’t just circumventing the rule, but actually changing the role of prop traders. You’d assume that instead of trading with the firm’s money on prop trading desks, the traders will be trading with the firm’s clients’ money on the asset management team. But proprietary trading can easily become related to client operations and very closely resemble the prop trading done on strictly defined “prop trading” desks. Thanks to a line in the Volcker Rule which specifies trading “operations unrelated to customer operations,” as long as the “prop trading” is done for client-related purposes, it’s OK. While the original legislation allowed banks to do prop trading “in facilitation of customer relations,” that language has since been removed to address concerns about the very kind of loophole now being explored. Removing that line stripped banks of a key weapon against the Volcker Rule. “We are in fact pleased with the development because it shows how strong the Volcker Rule is,” said a Senate Democratic aide who’d been involved in drafting the legislation. “These firms are moving their traders into their asset management division because they recognize that these traders can no longer engage in prop trading but rather must trade on behalf of customers — who can exercise real market discipline on those traders. That should lead to a significant reduction in risk to the financial system.” Indeed, now that prop trading has largely been banned, banks which intend to follow the law would either reassign these traders to other desks or lay them off. The law does allow firms to trade a small amount of taxpayer-backed capital for their own profit, fueling fears that banks would use the leeway to continue to trade large positions. But, noted the aide, “the mere fact that the firms are putting people in asset management is a good sign, not a bad one. The talk about loopholes and weak Volcker Rule is really just uninformed.” Bank of America, too, looks to be following the law, at least for now. From Fox: “There are some indications that BofA is following Goldman’s lead. A Bank of America spokesman says the firm has no plans to fire its proprietary traders because most of the business now involves dealing with customers, as opposed to traders coming up with their own market ideas and then using firm capital to trade.”

Read the full article →

Robert Scheer: There’s Just No Pleasing Some Robber Barons

July 14, 2010

The flight from reason that now marks American public discourse came home for me last Friday when I found myself on public radio debating whether Barack Obama is anti-business. The “news hook” for KCRW’s “Left, Right & Center” show, which I have co-hosted for 15 years, was an absurd spate of charges from Obama’s former big-business allies that he had become their enemy. If only it were so. One of those who has been complaining is billionaire publisher Mort Zuckerman, who now finds in a White House he once supported “hostility” to the business culture he credits with the country’s greatness. I assume he is not talking about the belated efforts to hold BP accountable for the cost of the oil spill that our pro-drilling president once thought not possible. And then there was Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric and once friendly to Obama but now alarmed by new regulations. He was one of the many CEOs cited by Fareed Zakaria in The Washington Post as evidence of “Obama’s CEO problem.” General Electric is a company that got into deep trouble when it stopped worrying about making better light bulbs and came to devote much of its business through GE capital to fancy financial products. With GE having been saved by the taxpayers, one wonders what the conglomerate has to complain about. Or Wall Street donors now stiffing the Democrats and claiming Obama is hostile to them. All this comes at the very time that Wall Street lobbyists stand poised to win a sweeping victory preventing a reversal of the radical deregulation that made the banking debacle possible. The “Volcker rule,” restoration of the New Deal-era barrier between investment and consumer banking that Obama had pledged to support, is gutted. As a disappointed Paul Volcker told Louis Uchitelle in an interview for The New York Times, he would rate the reforms just a B and not even a B-plus. Leading Wall Street economist Henry Kaufman told the Times: “The legislation is a Rube Goldberg contraption, and there are long timelines before the Volcker rule is fully implemented.” Game over, Wall Street won big-time, and the Bush-Obama policy has made the financiers whole while largely ignoring the deep plight of the true victims of the economic collapse, the unemployed and the foreclosed. The argument that Obama is anti-business is nothing more than the old propaganda trick that the best defense is a good offense, so blame the victims for your crimes. The high-tone intellectual argument for that position was supplied by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, a transplanted Thatcherite, at the same Aspen, Colo., gathering where Zuckerman spoke. At a conference on ideas paid for and attended by the rich and well-positioned, Ferguson argued that the high rate of unemployment is not due to the Wall Street high rollers whose funny-money games wiped out 8 million jobs but rather the extension of the government’s unemployment insurance program: “The curse of long-term unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time. Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.” Yes, except that the public policy that was so terribly misconceived was that of radical deregulation, launched by the Reagan Revolution and implemented by President Bill Clinton, not the pathetic palliative of unemployment checks. Notice that the attacks on Obama are not about his having followed George W. Bush’s example of throwing money at Wall Street, the cause of the meltdown and the run-up of the national debt, but rather the much smaller amount spent on ameliorating the pain that the titans of finance caused for ordinary citizens. And of course there is never a word of self-criticism on the part of folks like Ferguson, Immelt and Zuckerman for their own roles in having cheered on the radical deregulation that made this mess not only possible but inevitable. Not so Volcker, once the darling of fiscal conservatives when he tamed inflation during the Carter and Reagan years, and when as Fed chair and later as an influential observer he failed to stand publicly against the move to radical deregulation. As was reported in the Times interview, “In retrospect, Mr. Volcker regrets not challenging the widely held assumptions that underpinned much of this. `You had an intellectual conviction that you did not need much regulation–that the market could take care of itself,’ he says. `I’m happy that illusion has been shattered.’” Unfortunately, that illusion has not been shattered for many of the elite in this country, as evidenced by their rage against Obama’s too modest steps in the right direction.

Read the full article →

Video: Volcker Said to Be Disappointed With Dilution of Rule: Video

June 30, 2010

June 30 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is reportedly disappointed with the final version of the rule that bears his name. Volcker didn’t expect his proposal to ban banks from running private-equity and hedge funds to be diluted so much, said a person with knowledge of his views. Bloomberg’s Margaret Brennan reports.(Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

The 14th Banker: Baby Steps on Banking Regulation

June 11, 2010

These are the functions of banks in the economy per Joe Stiglitz . But the criteria for judgment are clear: the new law must curb the practices that jeopardized the entire global economy, and reorient the financial system towards its proper tasks – managing risk, allocating capital, providing credit (especially to small- and medium-sized enterprises), and operating an efficient payments system. What we have now is an overly complex system. Complexity contributes to the opportunity for looting. Going into this week, here was the score per NYT. First, a little optimism from article linked above. “We’re on the verge of legislating sweeping reforms of our financial system, to fix what was broken in our system, recognizing that those failures in the United States were very consequential to the world as a whole,” Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, said last week before leaving to meet with G-20 financial ministers in South Korea. And a little more optimism from today’s news on Huffpo: The House and Senate have reached “conceptual agreement” on strengthening what’s known as the Volcker Rule in the Wall Street reform bill, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said after a conference committee hearing Thursday. Why do I not hear howling from Wall Street? Major bank stocks were up 3% to 4% on the day. I guess I am a skeptic because I’m rather sure that neither the Treasury, nor the Congress, know what problem to fix. From the 1991 book, Den of Thieves , by James Stewart: “It began quietly, gained momentum, turned into a torrent, and was soon generating millions–billions–in profit. It was so successful it seemed it couldn’t be stopped, regulated, or contained. Investors were lured by its siren song: higher profits with lower risk…The rich prospered and the gulf between them and the poor widened dramatically. Government reaped the growing tax revenues and otherwise did little or nothing…And then it all came to a halt. Experts turned out to be wrong. Once again, investors were reminded that higher returns are always accompanied by higher risk. The soaring values were illusory, simply the manifestation of another of history’s economic bubbles…” This quote was referring to a prior iteration of a financial bubble, the junk bonds house of cards that fueled a previous collapse. Regulation is an answer, it is not the answer. Restoring a balance of power between the public and our largest corporations is an answer. Restoring the power of the prosecutor by providing clear criminal laws and the legal firepower to enforce them is an answer. Holding not just institutions, but individuals legally responsible is an answer. Restoring a stigma to white collar crime is an answer. Understanding management systems and how they corrupt is an answer. By all these things, bringing risk and reward into a proper relationship and eliminating moral hazard is an answer. There are many answers, and they must all be pursued. Having a regulation package ready for President Obama is great. It is a first step on a long journey. It is a journey that is more consequential than just fixing an industry. It has consequences for every American and most citizens of the world. Unemployment is high. Europe is reeling. Government debt is spiraling. Currencies are volatile. The solutions we need are a financial system that has trust and that properly allocates resources so that the productive capacity of our economies can grow in a steady, non inflationary way, without excessive business cycles like the one that has tens of millions unemployed or sub optimally employed. I remain skeptical that we won’t be back again is six months with the promise of this reform overwhelmed by market forces in a fundamentally unbalanced system with risks only slightly moderated.

Read the full article →

Frank: ‘Conceptual Agreement’ Reached On Tougher Volcker Rule

June 10, 2010

The House and Senate have reached “conceptual agreement” on strengthening what’s known as the Volcker Rule in the Wall Street reform bill, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said after a conference committee hearing Thursday. The Volcker Rule restricts major banks from trading taxpayer money for their own profit. The Senate version would leave the decision of whether to bar such trading up to regulators. The House bill would empower regulators to do so, but would give no direction. Advocates of a strong Volcker Rule fear that without direction, regulators won’t act. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) were amassing support for a tough Volcker Rule in the Senate when Wall Street lobbyists succeeded in blocking it from being considered. Frank said that conference negotiators were moving in the direction of Merkley and Levin’s amendment. “I think there’s conceptual agreement. You have several things: You have tough regulation of derivatives, which I prefer much of what the Senate did. You’re going to have a tougher version of the Volcker Rule.” A reporter asked what the tougher rule would look like. “I would say the general direction that Senators Merkley and Levin were moving in is a direction a lot of people are supportive of, but the final version, we’ll see. It will be tougher than the House. The House simply empowers the regulators. There will be some direction” given to regulators, he said. Conceptual agreements, of course, are much different than final agreements on financial regulatory reform. The conferees meet again on Tuesday to debate titles three, four, five and nine, dealing with the merging of regulators, insurance regulation, private funds and credit rating agencies.

Read the full article →

Volcker Optimistic About Financial Reform Bill

June 10, 2010

Reuters) – There is a good chance that a sweeping U.S. financial reform bill will be passed in a “reasonable form,” White House economic adviser Paul Volcker said on Wednesday, adding the bill could provide a basis for international coordination on coherent legislation. Politics The Senate version of the bill includes the substance of his proposed “Volcker rule” curbing risky practices by banks, though caution is needed to prevent changes that could limit its effectiveness, he said.

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: Bank Reform Bait and Switch

June 6, 2010

When the Senate bank reform legislation passed in May, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it sent the message to Wall Street “no longer can you recklessly gamble away other people’s money.” The bill told Main Street “you no longer have to fear that your savings, your retirement or your home are at the mercy of greedy gamblers in big banks. And it says to them: never again will you be asked to bail out those big banks when they lose their risky bets,” according to Reid. Reid was correct. The bill passed by the Senate did protect the taxpayers from reckless gambling by the big banks, largely due to the last minute inclusion of strong derivatives reforms authored by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas). So why is it that Senate and House leadership are now busy behind these scenes trying to kill the best provisions in their own banking reform legislation? Watch the Hands On Wednesday, a House-Senate conference committee will begin work aligning the two versions of the bank reform bill. Lincoln’s proposal to force the big banks to spin off their derivatives desks into another, separately capitalized corporate entity is the top target of the big bank lobby which has spent $600 million so far in an attempt to defeat reform. Behind the scenes, Senate Banking Chair Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Chair Barney Frank have made it clear they are not fans of Lincoln’s proposal. Neither is the U.S. Treasury Department. Treasury official Michael Barr has been running around telling anyone who will listen that these derivatives rules were not part of the administration’s four “core objectives” for financial reform. But these opponents of strong derivatives reform have a big problem. They can’t just yank it out of the bill with an outcry from consumer advocates and reform groups like Americans for Financial Reform who have been working hard on the issue. So they have cooked up a new scheme. They will replace the Lincoln language with the strengthened version of the Volcker Rule offered (but never voted on) by Senators Merkley (D- Oregon) and Levin (D-Michigan). They want to convince everyone that a strengthened Volcker Rule takes care of all the issues raised by Lincoln. “Zero Overlap” Between Proposals I asked Jane D’Arista, the former staff economist for the House Banking and Commerce Committees, whether a strengthened Volcker Rule was a fair trade for Lincoln. D’Arista, who is a big supporter of both reforms, says the two measures are simply not interchangeable. “There is zero overlap between the prohibitions in the Volcker Rule and the Lincoln derivative desk push-out proposal. They are separate reforms designed to do very different things,” says D’Arista. The Volcker Rule deals importantly, but narrowly, with derivatives trading for a bank’s own account. This is called propriety trading and banks would be barred from trading any financial instrument (mortgage backed securities and stocks as well as derivatives) for their own as opposed to a customer’s account. Merkley-Levin would make this reform a statutory ban rather than leaving it to the discretion of regulators and would further crack down on Goldman-style conflict of interest trading. But big banks would still be allowed to deal and trade on behalf of their clients and their derivatives business would still be backed by the taxpayer guarantee. Unique Reforms in the Lincoln Derivatives Language The Lincoln derivatives language tackles another set of issues. D’Arista helped walk me though the Lincoln reforms that are not addressed by the Volcker Rule or Merkley-Levin. Removes Taxpayer Liability for Wall Street Gambling: According to D’Arista the Lincoln language “lets banks be banks again.” D’Arista can’t understand why taxpayers are being forced to back up the business of marketing risky derivatives in the first place. “There was no precedent or understanding in law or practice that this should be the case prior to the 2008 financial crisis when investment banks reorganized as bank holding companies to gain access to Federal Reserve bailout money,” says D’Arista. Lincoln’s proposal to force the big banks to spin off their derivatives desk would separate the risky business of marketing derivatives from the Federal Reserve window, FDIC insurance, and the taxpayer guarantee. No other measure in the House or Senate bill does this. Ends the Shadow Market: Lincoln proposes to spin off the derivatives desks into separately capitalized affiliates. “One of the real virtues of a separate derivatives affiliate is that it increases transparency. If derivatives transactions occur within the bank, they are necessarily off balance sheet as a contingent liability or asset. Even with requirements for clearing and trading standardized contracts on exchanges, it is easier to hide how much over the counter business they are doing using non-standardized contracts. This makes it difficult to know the aggregate position of the bank or have adequate information about its risky trades,” says D’Arista. In contrast, the Lincoln language forces these trades to be conducted by a stand-alone affiliate, regulated by the SEC and CFTC, that would be required to provide real-time information on its aggregate position and the volume and pricing of trades. Bank affiliates could still serve bank customers. The major loss to banks is their inability to sell and trade without disclosing the prices they charge. Engenders Competition and Reduces Risk: D’Arista says the Lincoln bill would also engender old fashion capitalist competition in the derivatives market. “Right now the big banks make up 90 percent of the derivatives market. When they put their trading desks into a separately capitalized affiliate, the huge capital reserves of the bank itself will no longer be there to back their enormous derivatives positions and the outsized scale of the derivatives market relative to the actual needs of commercial end-users. The smaller capital reserves of the affiliates will tend to shrink banks’ share of the market and open the door to other entrants. Plus it expands the list of counterparties in the system, reducing the risk to the financial system as a whole,” says D’Arista. Closes Major Loopholes: Another big plus is that the Lincoln language closes the $60 trillion foreign exchange swap loophole in the House version of the bill. These derivatives would be treated like any other swap and be subject to mandatory clearing and exchange trading. The CFTC estimates that 90 percent of the derivatives market would be covered under the Senate version of the bill but only 60 percent under the House bill. Protects States and Localities from Abusive Swaps: The Lincoln language contains a dozen other incredibly powerful safeguards including: a provision that would impose a “fiduciary duty” on a swap dealer entering into swaps with government entities such as states, municipalities and pension funds; a provision to allow regulators to prosecute persons who knowingly or with reckless disregard use false or misleading information to impact the price of any commodity such as food or oil; and a whistleblower protection program at the CFTC to encourage citizens to report fraud and abuse in the financial markets. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi said this week that she supports the Lincoln language and strong derivatives reform. It is hard to believe that Harry Reid will stand by and let the Treasury Department, Dodd and Frank gut the best parts of the bill that he lauded himself. No Backroom Deals Campaign for America’s Future, CREDO and MoveOn are spearheading a “No Backroom Deals” campaign to force the conference committee to do its dirty work in the light of day. Sign the petition today and let your member of Congress know how you feel about strong bank reform.

Read the full article →

Video: Myrow Expects Overhaul Bill to Look Like Senate Version: Video

May 21, 2010

May 21 (Bloomberg) — Stephen Myrow, a former Treasury official who is now managing director at ACG Analytics Inc., talks with Bloomberg’s Margaret Brennan about the outlook for legislation overhauling banking regulations. Myrow also discusses the impact of the bill on the stock market and his expectations for derivative regulations and the Volcker rule. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Reid: Wall Street Debate To End In Senate This Week

May 17, 2010

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is “likely” to file cloture on the Wall Street reform bill Monday evening, setting up a final vote on the legislation for Wednesday, said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. Reid said from the well of the Senate earlier Monday that “as soon as tonight, we could file cloture on this and hold a final vote this week.” Dozens of amendments have yet to be voted on, with senators jockeying for precious floor time. Reid’s determination to finish the bill by the middle of the week makes it all the harder to get an individual amendment to the floor. “I do remind all my colleagues that the amendment process can continue after cloture is filed and after it is invoked,” Reid said. Cloture is required to overcome objections to move forward on a bill. With 60 votes, cloture is invoked and a final vote can be held after an intervening day. Several amendments to strengthen the bill are in line for a vote, including one from Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) that would implement the Volcker Rule, which bars commercial banks from trading with taxpayer-backed funds. Another, from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would require credit cards to follow the laws of the state where a customer resides, rather than the non-existent laws of the state where the credit card company builds its headquarters — typically South Dakota or Delaware. As the public debate has carried on, the bill has been made stronger. Reform advocates are hoping for similar transparency during conference committee negotiations, which are typically held behind closed doors, where killing key provisions is easier. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is pushing to hold such negotiations in front of C-SPAN cameras. First, though, the Senate must wrap up its work. “The Senate has voted for amendments to strengthen the bill and has voted against efforts to weaken it. Democrats and Republicans have voted for each other’s amendments. This is the way it should be. But the end must come. The time has come to begin work sending this to conference so we can have a bill go to the president. I hope the two managers of this bill, Chairman Dodd and ranking member Shelby, can continue to work on this bill. Another reason to finish sooner rather than later is that we have such important work to do this month,” said Reid. “At the top of that list is a new jobs bill.”

Read the full article →

`Perfect Quarter’ for Four Banks Shows Fed-Linked Revival on Wall Street

May 12, 2010

By David Mildenberg and Dawn Kopecki May 12 (Bloomberg) — Four of the largest U.S. banks, including Citigroup Inc. , racked up perfect quarters in their trading businesses between January and March, underscoring how government support and less competition is fueling Wall Street’s revival. Bank of America Corp ., JPMorgan Chase & Co . and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , the first, second and fifth-biggest U.S. banks by assets, all said in regulatory filings that they had zero days of trading losses in the first quarter. Citigroup Inc. , the third-largest, doesn’t break out its daily trading revenue by quarter. It recorded a profit on each trading day, two people with knowledge of the results said. “The trading profits of the Street is just another way of measuring the subsidy the Fed is giving to the banks,” said Christopher Whalen , managing director of Torrance, California- based Institutional Risk Analytics. “It’s a transfer from savers to banks.” The trading results, which helped the banks report higher quarterly profit than analysts estimated even as unemployment stagnated at a 27-year high, came with a big assist from the Federal Reserve. The U.S. central bank helped lenders by holding short-term borrowing costs near zero, giving them a chance to profit by carrying even 10-year government notes that yielded an average of 3.70 percent last quarter. Yield Curve The gap between short-term interest rates, such as what banks may pay to borrow in interbank markets or on savings accounts , and longer-term rates, known as the yield curve, has been at record levels. The difference between yields on 2- and 10-year Treasuries yesterday touched 2.71 percentage points, near the all-time high of 2.94 percentage points set Feb. 18. It’s an awkward moment for the largest banks to be reporting more profitable trading. President Barack Obama is seeking to prohibit banks from trading solely for their own profit, a proposal favored by Paul Volcker , the former Fed chairman who is now a White House adviser. “The banks are getting while the getting is good because you have regulatory reform and the Volcker rule and possible bank taxes down the road,” said Matthew McCormick , a banking analyst at Bahl & Gaynor Inc. in Cincinnati, which manages about $2.8 billion including bank stocks. “It’s statistically improbable to have three firms batting 1,000 and also pitching a perfect game. You wonder why the rest of America has some suspicion about proprietary trading.” ‘Implausible’ Proprietary Model Wells Fargo & Co., the No. 4 U.S. bank, doesn’t disclose how many days it had trading gains or losses, said John Shrewsberry , head of the bank’s securities and investment group. Bank of America declined to comment beyond its filing, according to spokesman Jerry Dubrowski . JPMorgan also wouldn’t comment, spokesman Joseph Evangelisti said. Fed spokesman David Skidmore didn’t reply to an e-mail left after regular office hours yesterday. At Goldman Sachs, which is contesting a fraud lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission tied to the sale of a mortgage-linked security in 2007, net revenue was $25 million or higher on each of the days it traded. The New York-based firm said it made more than $100 million on 35 of those days, or more than half the time. The company’s fixed-income, currencies and commodities businesses and equities unit generate those returns by making markets for clients rather than betting the firm’s own money, Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn said yesterday at a financial services conference in New York. “There is often speculation that proprietary trading revenues drive our outperformance in these businesses,” Cohn said. “Over the last 12 months, we have only recorded 11 loss days. It is implausible that a proprietary-driven business model could be right 96 percent of the time.” Less Competition The demise of Bear Stearns Cos., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. also helped surviving banks, said Benjamin Wallace , an analyst at Grimes & Co. in Westborough, Massachusetts, which manages $900 million and holds shares of Bank of America and JPMorgan. “It was like a perfect storm for the fixed income market where you had very low volatility, tightening spreads and a buyer of last resort in the Federal Reserve,” said Paul Miller an analyst at FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia. “Even if a trade was going against you, you could just dump it on the Fed very quickly.” The trading-powered gains may not last. At the end of March, the Fed wound up a program in which it had bought $1.25 trillion of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae home-loan securities. The purchases had helped drive debt buyers from U.S. mortgage bonds with government-supported guarantees and into riskier debt, helping banks that were holding or trading it. The European debt crisis this month drove many investors back to safer assets, hurting prices for debt such as corporate bonds and commercial mortgage securities. “The high level of trading and securities gains in the first quarter of 2010 is not likely to continue throughout 2010,” JPMorgan said in its filing. To contact the reporters on this story: Dawn Kopecki in New York at dkopecki@bloomberg.com . David Mildenberg in Charlotte at dmildenberg@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Zach Carter: What’s Still Worth Fighting For On Wall Street Reform?

May 10, 2010

Last week, Congress decided it would not confront Too Big To Fail , the single gravest threat to our collective financial security. But there are still several key Wall Street reforms worth fighting for–reforms that must be enacted before the next crisis hits, with or without a big bank break-up. And fortunately, key Senators have authored amendments dealing with each one. Blanche Lincoln’s Derivatives Bill The most important fight from here on out is protecting the surviving elements of the derivatives bill crafted by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. The key reform in Lincoln’s bill would force big banks who deal derivatives to spin off those operations into separate companies. Derivatives are a breeding ground for straightforward gambling. For every $1 in legitimate risk-hedging in the derivatives market, there is $78 in speculative betting . That speculation is being backed by taxpayer perks–FDIC-insured deposits and Federal Reserve loans–that are supposed to support safe and productive lending, not reckless gambling. Lincoln would ban all federal backstops for this insanity, making the derivatives market less profitable, and therefore smaller, in the process. This element of Lincoln’s bill is already in the Senate legislation, but Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is pushing an amendment to gut this plan. Don’t let him get away with it. A vote for Gregg’s amendment is a vote for more– and more expensive– bank bailouts. The Volcker Rule The Volcker Rule has a similar aim to Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives plan. Economically essential banks shouldn’t be speculating with taxpayer money. The Volcker Rule would ban banks who receive Federal Reserve loans from conducting risky securities trades for their own accounts. Gambling with taxpayer money doesn’t help the economy in any way, it just produces short-term profits for banks while subjecting our tax dollars to long-term bailout risk. Whether the trades take the form of securities or derivatives, if they’re speculative, they shouldn’t be connected to the commercial banking system. Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jeff Merkeley, D-Ore., have authored an amendment that would require regulators to implement the Volcker Rule banning proprietary securities trading at commercial banks. Audit The Fed The Federal Reserve is the chief bailout engine for the U.S. banking system, and it operates under conditions of almost complete secrecy. Since the crisis broke out, the central bank has pumped nearly $4.3 trillion into the nation’s banks, but the taxpayers on the hook for these loans know almost nothing about them. We don’t know who the Fed extended loans to, the terms of the loans, or what Fed officials signed off on them. This is a disgrace to democracy. Nowhere else in American government can public officials spend public money without detailed disclosure. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has authored a bill that would subject the central bank’s bailout operations to a thorough and public audit. A more comprehensive audit authored by Reps. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, passed the House late last year. Both are worth supporting. If the Sanders amendment cleared the Senate, the audit could be widened in a conference with the House. But any effort to hold the Fed accountable is better than none. Protect Consumers When President Barack Obama first put forward his Wall Street reform proposals in June 2009, the strongest provision was a plan to create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), whose sole charge was cracking down on abusive bank lending. Our current crop of regulators totally failed to perform this job over the past decade, as millions of foreclosure victims can attest to. Today’s bank regulators are charged with ensuring both bank profitability (a type of regulation known as “safety and soundness”) and that consumers are treated fairly. In practice, that has meant regulators ignore bank rip-offs, provided they create short-term profits. Unfortunately, Obama’s strong CFPA bill has been watered down over the course of nearly a year of negotiations. Instead of an independent agency, the current Senate bill would house the consumer regulator at the Federal Reserve, a regulator which had the authority to crack down on mortgage market abuses throughout the crisis, but failed to exercise it . What’s worse, the current Senate bill limits the scope of the new consumer regulator’s rule-writing authority, gives the existing, failed regulators veto power over those rules, and restricts the new regulator’s ability to enforce its rules. There was no good economic reason for the Senate to make any of these changes–they were all simply concessions to deep-pocketed bank lobbyists, nothing more, nothing less. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., has an excellent amendment that would restore Obama’s original CFPA language, and provide real protection for consumers. Cap Leverage Banks amplify their bets by borrowing loads of money, a phenomenon called leverage. As the crisis unfolded in 2008, some banks found themselves with $40 or even $60 in borrowed money for every $1 of their own cash. That meant big profits while markets were moving up, but epic losses when markets started falling. The Senate must impose a hard cap on leverage to complement the 12-to-1 cap included in the Wall Street reform bill that cleared the House last year. The Brown-Kaufman amendment would have limited bank borrowing to $16.67 for every $1 of their own money. Brown-Kaufman also would have broken up the six largest U.S. banks, and was rejected in the Senate last week. The Senate should vote on the leverage cap as a stand-alone amendment.

Read the full article →

Former Fed Chairman Volcker Opposes Forcing Banks To Spin Off Swaps Desks

May 7, 2010

The establishment is lining up against Blanche Lincoln. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Arkansas senator authored a bipartisan bill to reform the derivatives market. Its centerpiece is a provision banning banks from also acting as derivatives dealers. Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) incorporated Lincoln’s bill into the pending financial reform legislation. Because banks enjoy explicit taxpayer support through federal deposit insurance and access to cheap funds via the Federal Reserve’s discount lending window, Lincoln doesn’t want taxpayers to implicitly support derivatives dealing. Derivatives, traditionally used as a risk-management tool, amplified and exacerbated the financial crisis because their use was abused by firms that simply used them to place bets. This bound financial firms together in ways that weren’t fully understood until the height of the crisis, necessitating further taxpayer support. But her proposal, widely supported by reformers, has met fierce opposition from Wall Street, its supporters in the Senate and the Obama administration, including pro-reform voices like Paul Volcker and Sheila Bair. Wall Street argues that it’s too costly — forcing banks to spin off their derivatives desks into non-taxpayer supported affiliates compels firms to raise additional cash to support them. Bank regulators such as Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair and Obama administration officials such as Timothy Geithner argue that it’s safer to keep swaps desks inside banks because bank regulation is tougher than the regulatory regime over nonbanks. Better to keep these units inside better-regulated institutions, they argue. Lincoln counters with an argument that resonates among reformers: let banks be banks. Dealing in derivatives and other complex securities should be left to investment firms and other specialists that don’t enjoy taxpayer protection. In short, taxpayers shouldn’t backstop speculation. But now, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has thrown his weight behind those trying to kill Lincoln’s proposal. “The provision of derivatives by commercial banks to their customers in the usual course of a banking relationship should not be prohibited,” Volcker wrote in a letter dated Thursday to Dodd, Geithner, and Sens. Shelby (R-Ala.), Merkley (D-Ore.), Levin (D-Mich.) and Lincoln. Volcker wrote that other parts of Dodd’s bill, plus an amendment by Merkley and Levin that attempts to rein in banks’ trading activities, sufficiently address his concerns about taxpayer-supported banks leveraging that support to speculate in the markets. His letter comes on the heels of comments made by Geithner during a Thursday appearance before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. “When people look back at this crisis, when they look at the excessive risks taken by large financial institutions, the natural inclination is to move those risky activities elsewhere. To create stability, some argue, we should just separate banks from ‘risk.’ “But, in important ways, that is exactly what caused this crisis. “The lesson of this crisis, and of the parallel financial system, is that we cannot make the economy safe by taking functions central to the business of banking, functions necessary to help raise capital for businesses and help businesses hedge risk, and move them outside banks, and outside the reach of strong regulation,” Geithner said in his prepared remarks. It’s unclear how the issuance of anything beyond basic derivatives contracts that seek to minimize risk to fluctuations in interest rates, currency exchange rates, and commodity prices is “central to the business of banking.” READ Volcker’s letter below: Volcker Letter Regarding Lincoln Swaps Provision

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: Stock Market Collapse: More Goldman Market Rigging?

May 7, 2010

Last week, Goldman Sachs was on the congressional hot seat, grilled for fraud in its sale of complicated financial products called “synthetic CDOs.” This week the heat was off, as all eyes turned to the attack of the shorts on Greek sovereign debt and the dire threat of a sovereign Greek default. By Thursday, Goldman’s fraud had slipped from the headlines and Congress had been cowed into throwing in the towel on its campaign to break up the too-big-to-fail banks . On Friday, Goldman was in settlement talks with the SEC. Goldman and Wall Street reign. Congress appears helpless to discipline the big banks, just as the European Central Bank appears helpless to prevent the collapse of the European Union. . . . Or are they? Suspicious Market Maneuverings The shorts circled like sharks in the Greek bond market, following a highly suspicious downgrade of Greek debt by Moody’s on Monday. Ratings by private ratings agencies, long suspected of being in the pocket of Wall Street, often seem to be timed to cause stocks or bonds to jump or tumble, causing extreme reactions in the market. The Greek downgrade was suspicious and unexpected because the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund had just pledged 120 billion Euros to avoid a debt default in Greece. Markets were roiled further on Thursday, when the U.S. stock market suddenly lost 999 points, and just as suddenly recovered two-thirds of that loss. It appeared to be such a clear case of tampering that Maria Bartiromo blurted out on CNBC, “That is ridiculous. This really sounds like market manipulation to me.” Manipulation by whom? Markets can be rigged with computers using high-frequency trading programs (HFT), which now compose 70% of market trading; and Goldman Sachs is the undisputed leader in this new gaming technique. Matt Taibbi maintains that Goldman Sachs has been “engineering every market manipulation since the Great Depression.” When Goldman does not get its way, it is in a position to throw a tantrum and crash the market. It can do this with automated market making technologies like the one invented by Max Keiser , which he claims is now being used to turbocharge market manipulation. Goldman was an investment firm until September 2008, when it became a “bank holding company” overnight in order to capitalize on the bank bailout, including borrowing virtually interest-free from the Federal Reserve and other banks. In January, when President Obama backed Paul Volcker in his plan to reinstate a form of the Glass-Steagall Act that would separate investment banking from commercial banking, the market collapsed on cue, and the Volcker Rule faded from the headlines. When Goldman got dragged before Congress and the SEC in April, the Greek crisis arose as a “counterpoint,” diverting attention to that growing conflagration. Greece appears to be the sacrificial play in the EU just as Lehman Brothers was in the U.S., “the hostage the kidnappers shoot to prove they mean business.” The Nuclear Option It is still possible, however, for the European Central Bank to snatch Greece from the fire and rout the shorts. It can do this with what has been called the nuclear option — “monetizing” the debt of Greece and other debt-laden EU countries by effectively “printing money” (quantitative easing) and buying the debt itself at very low interest rates. This is called the “nuclear option” because it would blow up the hedge funds and electronic sharks operated by Goldman and other Wall Street heavies, which specialize in bringing down corporations and whole countries for strategic and exploitative ends. Will the ECB proceed with this plan? Perhaps , say some experts. It could just be waiting for the German election on Sunday, which the ECB does not want to appear to be influencing.

Read the full article →

Blankfein Says `Callousness’ Shown in E-Mails Doesn’t Represent Goldman

May 1, 2010

By Christine Harper May 1 (Bloomberg) — Lloyd Blankfein , chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , said a “callousness” toward clients demonstrated in some e-mails released to the public this week is unacceptable and doesn’t represent the firm. “There were some e-mails where some people were projecting I would say, at best indifference, and at worst a callousness,” Blankfein, 55, said in an interview on the “ Charlie Rose ” television show last night, according to a transcript. While he said those e-mails aren’t representative of the firm, “it’s inexcusable if 10 people think that way or thought that way.” Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street firm that generates more trading revenue than any other, has lost 21 percent of its market value since it was sued on April 16 by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over its sale of a mortgage- linked security. It is also under criminal investigation by federal prosecutors, said two people familiar with the matter. “The firm is guiltless and this is a big preoccupation for me and a big preoccupation for our management group,” Blankfein said, according to the transcript. Blankfein, who has run the company since June 2006, defended the firm’s actions this week under interrogation from a U.S. Senate subcommittee, which released 901 pages of documents including e-mail that showed employees disparaging securities they were offering to clients. Most of the complex derivatives the firm developed and traded had a “social utility,” he said, while others may have gone too far. ‘Hindsight’ Regrets “If the issuants themselves are too complicated, become too illiquid as it turns out that they were, notwithstanding the purpose you may say, ‘Let’s not do those things,’” Blankfein said, according to the transcript. “So in hindsight I wish we had not done some of those things.” The stock fell 9.4 percent yesterday to $145.20, in New York trading, its biggest drop since the SEC brought the suit on April 16. The company has lost $21 billion in market value since the case was filed. Blankfein said Goldman Sachs will survive and “thrive” in the future. He said he would step down if his leadership damaged the firm, calling that scenario unlikely. “I’ll be here,” he said, according to the transcript. “That’s my expectation and that’s my duty.” Goldman Sachs must improve communication with the public, Blankfein said. “That’s a huge challenge, I would just say it’s my deficiency,” he said. “We can’t exist in the current state that we’re in and we understand that. So we have a lot of work to do.” Stunning News News of the SEC suit came as a shock, Blankfein said. “It was in the middle of the morning, it was stunning,” he said. “I saw it over the screen. I read it, and my — it just — my stomach turned over. I couldn’t — I was stunned.” Blankfein defended the role that Goldman Sachs , and Wall Street as a whole, plays in making markets. “You could call it a casino, but if it is, it’s a very socially important casino,” he said. On congressional efforts to strengthen financial regulation, Blankfein said he supports many aspects of the bill proposed by Senator Christopher Dodd , a Connecticut Democrat. The so-called Volcker Rule, which would require banks to exit the business of trading for their own account, or proprietary trading, would eliminate about 10 percent of Goldman Sachs’s revenue, Blankfein said. “There are aspects of the Volcker rule that go too far,” he said. “I work very hard for the 10 percent of our revenue.” In an interview to be aired tomorrow on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” Blankfein said parts of the Volcker rule “are warranted” and he ”could” support them. “If it makes institutions safer, that’s good,” he said. “But if it makes institutions forgo revenue opportunities, that fact by itself is bad.” Contributing to Crisis Goldman Sachs, which reported record earnings last year even as it repaid $10 billion of taxpayer bailout funds, inadvertently helped cause the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Blankfein said in an interview with National Public Radio on April 29. “Some of the things that Goldman Sachs did contributed to the crisis,” Blankfein told NPR, according to a transcript of that interview. “So, for example, Goldman Sachs did transactions for companies that involved lending them a lot of money, maybe too much money. We financed real estate that was probably overleveraged.” Blankfein told CNN the firm must “regain the trust of the public” to survive. “We have no choice,” Blankfein said, according to a transcript of the interview. “We can’t survive without people thinking well of us.” In the CNN interview, Blankfein also said former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called him “maybe twice as often as he called any other bank CEO” during the financial crisis and that Paulson was being “very, very careful to be appropriate.” Paulson had been head of Goldman Sachs before going to the Treasury Department. Paulson isn’t connected to the hedge fund by the same name. To contact the reporter on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: USAA Members Can Support Financial Reform

April 29, 2010

As a consumer advocate and a military brat, I have long been a huge fan and a lifelong member of USAA. USAA is an insurance company that was set up to assist military families and their dependents. It has a reputation for low rates and great service, but I am disappointed in the firm this week for its clumsy foray into the world of lobbying. USAA was founded in 1922 by a group of U.S. Army officers to self-insure each other after they were turned down by insurance firms for being a “high-risk” group. USAA is a Fortune 500 firm, but it has an unusual structure under Texas law that allows it to be an insurance company with a banking arm and an investment arm. Since there are no shareholders, profits are retained to maintain the institutions financial strength or they are returned to the members. When I got in my first car accident last year, USAA was on the case within the hour and had my car repaired and all issues taken care of within two weeks. But as Reuters has reported, USAA has taken a wrong turn on financial reform. As a client, I along with millions of others received an unusual email from the firm entitled “USAA CEO requests your help today.” The email argued that the firm should be exempt from provisions in the financial reform bill being debated in Congress because it would “Prevent USAA from managing the association’s portfolio as we have for the past 87 years” and “Limit our ability to return money to our members.” Yikes. They asked me to call my member of Congress and tell them to exempt USAA from the “Volcker Rule.” Tens of thousands of responsible USAA members promptly did so. I am asking my fellow USAA members to pause and consider why every consumer group in America is a big backer of the Volcker Rule. USAA Members Should Support the Volcker Rule The idea was developed by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as a modern way to restore depression-era “Glass-Steagall” consumer protections that set up a firewall between Wall Street gambling and Main Street banking. The spotlight in Washington has been on Wall Street vultures who used their proprietary trading desks to bet that the housing market would collapse. They bet on catastrophe and won, but in the process they mislead their investors and their reckless trading amplified the crisis for the rest of us. Now those same firms have been reorganized and enjoy the backing of the federal government and American taxpayers. In other words, now when they gamble taxpayers are on the hook for their lousy bets. Americans for Financial Reform , an organization made up of 250 public interest groups fighting to crack down on Wall Street, believe this is a impossible situation that should not continue, thus they support the Volcker Rule. The Volcker rule separates most forms of proprietary trading from the federal guarantee. In other words, you can gamble, but if you do it you have to do it with your own money. The Volcker Rule is a critical reform to the financial system. No one thinks USAA engaged in they type of reckless trading that caused the crisis, but the fact that such rules may also require smaller, well-managed firm like USAA to slightly change their organizational structure is not a sufficient reason in my mind to give USAA an exemption. The next thing you know other firms will start to organize themselves to look like USAA and the whole fiasco starts all over again. But for those of you who think an exemption is the best way to go, there is a solution that allows for a fix without undermining the rules that rein in the Goldman Sachs and AIGs of the world. Concerned USAA Members Can Get Behind the Merkley-Levin Amendment Rather than taking a position that is considered by some as a vote “against” reform, USAA members can support meaningful financial reform. Tell you Senator that you support an amendment proposed by Sens. Merkley and Levin. The Merkley-Levin amendment would allow an insurance company like USAA whose trading desk is subject to state level regulation to continue its insurance business without being subject to the Volcker Rule restrictions on holding a bank. However, if an insurance company also has a separate hedge fund, private equity fund, or some other Wall Street entity that is not regulated by the state insurance regulator like AIG did, then it would be subject to the restrictions. USAA members can support USAA and support reform. Dare I say, it could be a win win for all of us? Learn more: read Americans for Financial Reform’s letter on the amendment here . See Americans for Financial Reform’s Open Letter to USAA members below. *************************************************************************** An Open Letter to USAA Members: If you are one of the 300 million Americans who have been affected by the financial crisis – if your family has lost a job or retirement savings, or if you’ve seen state budget cuts and foreclosures in your community – then financial reform is for you. But financial lobbyists have spent $1.4 million a day trying to kill a bill to hold them accountable, and everyday Americans don’t have lobbyists to make their support for financial reform heard. That’s why we’re concerned. Senators can interpret the calls from USAA members as opposition to strong reform, an invitation to carve out loopholes for every lobbyist, or worse yet–opposition to the bill overall. It’s important to get the facts first. Q: Why would “the Volcker Rule” affect USAA? A: Because USAA is an insurance company that owns a bank, it may be subject to the Volcker Rule’s limits on companies doing “proprietary” trading, or trading for the company’s own profit, when they also own federally-insured banks. The Rule is designed to stop loosely-regulated, large Wall Street firms like AIG (also an insurance company) from taking high-risk gambles with our savings in ways that don’t benefit us, the customers. For years now, banks have been increasingly looking to Wall Street–not Main Street–for investments. That has meant riskier investments, huge bonuses, and ultimately, a financial crash that left taxpayers with the bill. But since USAA is a well-regulated company that invests premiums for the benefit of its customers, it is seeking an amendment to clarify that it is exempt from the Rule. Q: What can we do to help? A: Senators Merkley and Levin have created the right amendment to exempt USAA from these limitations. They clarify that the Rule is targeted at the AIGs of the world, not the USAAs. That’s why we urge you to support the right amendment – because supporting just any amendment could open up a loophole big enough for AIG. Tell your Senator that you support the Merkley-Levin amendment to the Volcker Rule: • It would allow an insurance company like USAA that has good state level regulation to continue its insurance business without being subject to the Volcker Rule restrictions on holding a bank. However, if an insurance company also has a separate hedge fund, private equity fund, or some other Wall Street entity that is not regulated by the state insurance regulator (think AIG), then it would be subject to the restrictions. And while you’re at it, tell your Senator that you support strong financial reform that holds Wall Street accountable, protects consumers and taxpayers, and helps prevent another financial crisis. The bill would: • Bring derivatives into a transparent stock-exchange style market so that speculators can no longer make huge, risky and secret bets with our retirement accounts, pensions, and college savings. • End the era of “too big to fail” banks — by restoring the separation between commercial banks that take deposits, make loans and receive federal backstops from investment activities that carry different risks, and by setting up an orderly system for dismantling failed financial institutions so that those entities are treated to a “wind down”, not a bailout. • Create a new, independent and accountable Consumer Financial Protection Agency with broad authority to make sure payday lenders, auto dealers, mortgage companies and others who fell between the cracks of the old regulatory world are held to new standards of fairness that prevent tricks and traps in the fine print, kickbacks, and other hard-to-find “gotcha’s”. • Require venture capital and private equity fund advisers to comply with the new requirements to register with the SEC that hedge fund managers will meet. • Give shareholders a stronger voice in the selection of the boards of directors and the executive pay policies of the companies they own. • Establish a duty for brokers and insurance agents recommending securities, annuities and other investments to act in the best interests of the customers to whom they are making recommendations, and • Hold credit rating agencies to higher standards – by making them more accountable to investors and the SEC – so that they can’t escape responsibility for the “buy” recommendations so many investors rely on. Sincerely, Americans for Financial Reform

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: Hard Pressed, Senator Dodd Gives Ground

March 27, 2010

Senator Chris Dodd has good political antennae. He knows that his financial reform bill will come under severe pressure because it has a weak heart — the provisions that deal with “too big to fail” are simply “too weak to make any sense.” Stung by the hard-hitting critique of Senator Ted Kaufman earlier on Friday and unsure exactly where an increasingly combative White House is heading on the broader strategy vis-à-vis banks, Mr. Dodd took to the Senate floor yesterday afternoon – actually immediately after Senator Kaufman – in an attempt to sustain the momentum behind his approach to “reform”. Note the prominent and rather defensive mention of Delaware, Senator Kaufman’s state, in what Senator Dodd said (the wording here is from the verbatim recording, not the official transcript): “A business, as I say respectfully, in Connecticut or Delaware or Colorado, a homeowner in those states shouldn’t have to pay the price because a handful of financial institutions got too greedy, too risky, they were unwilling to examine what they were doing or did, recognizing that the federal government would bail them out if they made a bad choice, which they did.” Perhaps it was this picture that did it: Senator Dodd asserts that “never again should a financial problem of a major financial institution put the rest of the country at risk”. But there is no mention of the specific reforms that would prevent this. Mr. Dodd does express exactly the right general idea, “First and foremost, never, ever again should a financial institution get so large, so interconnected, produce products that put the rest of us at risk.” But the cognitive dissonance here is extreme. The only purported mechanism to rein in megabanks in the Dodd bill is the resolution authority, but this by definition cannot work for large complex cross-border financial institution – this is the point insisted upon by Senator Kaufman today. Dodd recognizes the validity of Kaufman’s argument at some level, but just cannot bring himself to say that he agrees – or to acknowledge that his legislation does nothing to deal with financial institutions that have already proved themselves to be so large they can damage society. So we reach an impasse – at least for now. Dodd concedes that too big to fail is the central issue and he implicitly acknowledges that his bill has no way to address the concerns raised by Senator Kaufman (and Paul Volcker and others). The White House has cleared the way for major progress vs. the financial sector lobby (nice speech by Neal Wolin to the Chamber of Commerce), but does not yet press home its advantage. Barney Frank knows there is a deep flaw in the current legislation and waits in the wings with a sharp pencil. He previously thought “too big to fail” firms could be taxed down to size; increasingly this seems unrealistic and at odds with the shifting consensus on systemic risk. Chris Dodd wants to go out in blaze of glory, not with a bill that makes no sense at all on its most critical points. Ted Kaufman is turning into a relentless critic, Elizabeth Warren is fast becoming a folk hero, and Paul Volcker is poised to make a major speech in Washington on Tuesday. Is Volcker likely to toe the party line and defer to Senator Dodd – or will he lay out in forceful terms what reforms would really mean, i.e., what are the true Volcker principles, who has them, and how would you know? Financial reform might make for good television after all.

Read the full article →

Fed’s Hoenig Backs Volcker Proprietary Trading Rule, Bank Leverage Limits

March 24, 2010

By Scott Lanman March 24 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig urged the U.S. to ban proprietary trading at banks and overhaul regulation to ensure a competitive financial system. “We will not have a healthy financial system now or in the future without making fundamental changes that reverse the wrong-headed incentives, change behavior and reinforce the structure of our financial system,” Hoenig said in a speech today at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. Hoenig’s recommendations build on his proposals over the past year to let big U.S. banks fail. The Senate Banking Committee on March 22 approved Chairman Christopher Dodd’s financial-rules overhaul, which includes the proposed Volcker rule to ban proprietary trading and prohibit investment in and sponsorship of hedge funds and private-equity funds by banks. “A credible resolution process, simple rules for leverage and loan-to-value limits, and the Volcker rule reforms will allow all banks to compete on an equitable basis,” Hoenig said at a conference on financial markets, hosted by the business group. “Reinstating these fundamental principles will enhance consumer, business and Main Street access to that most essential resource — capital.” Hoenig, 63, is the longest-serving Fed policy maker, having taken office in 1991. He is a voting member of the Fed’s Open Market Committee this year and has dissented from both of the panel’s decisions in January and March, preferring to jettison the pledge to keep interest rates very low for an “extended period.” Specific Outlook Hoenig didn’t give a specific outlook for the economy or monetary policy. He said the “market is slowly correcting, and credit growth is or will begin flowing to Main Street, providing job growth and economic recovery. However, it will not be rapid or easy.” Responding to audience questions, Hoenig said non- performing loans have continued to increase and would worsen during a slow economic recovery. “Non-performing loans have continued to trend up,” Hoenig said. “That trend line is very much influenced by where the economy goes from here.” He also reiterated his opposition to stripping the Fed of powers to supervise smaller banks, saying it would be “extremely harmful” to curtail the central bank’s oversight. Other Agencies The Senate bill would move to other agencies the Fed’s supervision of all banks except those with assets of more than $50 billion, which means most of the regional Fed banks would supervise no firms or just a few. The Kansas City Fed district has no single bank holding company with more than $50 billion in assets. Hoenig said he “couldn’t agree more” with people who say that if a financial firm is too big to fail, then it’s too big. The top 20 U.S. banks held Tier 1 common equity equal to 5.1 percent of their assets at the end of 2009, compared with 6.7 percent for other banking firms, Hoenig said. That reflects implied support from the government and lets the firms issue more and cheaper debt, he said. “This framework has failed to serve us well,” Hoenig said, citing losses during the financial crisis and rescues from the Troubled Asset Relief Program that resulted in an “immediate reduction in lending to Main Street.” Last year, 45 percent of banks with assets of less than $1 billion increased their business lending, Hoenig said. To contact the reporter on this story: Scott Lanman in Washington at slanman@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

The Volcker Rule: Bank Lobbyists Fight To Change ‘Must’ To ‘May’

March 22, 2010

As you may just have heard the devil is in the details. Or, in the case of the latest push to reform Wall Street, the devil is in whether or not the details will actually be mandatory. Bank lobbyists looking to weaken the Volcker Rule are targeting its language, Business Week reports. The financial reform bill unveiled by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D – Conn.) last week includes a rule prohibiting commercial banks from owning or investing in hedge funds, private equity funds or proprietary trading operations. The mandate, one of two chief reforms proposed by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, was revealed by President Obama in January. Dodd’s bill stops short of implementing the Volcker Rule. Instead, it requires that the government “shall issue final regulations implementing” the ban. But lobbyists for the financial industry argue that it hasn’t yet been shown that the rule — which according to one somewhat questionable estimate would cost the top eight banks $11 billion next year — would effectively curb any of the behaviors that led to the last financial crisis. Accordingly, industry reps are reportedly scrambling to replace ‘shall’ with something a whole lot less stringent. As one lobbyist told Business Week : “We believe the regulators should have the discretion to deal with the situation on a company-by-company basis,” said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington-based trade group. “You can’t have a blanket prohibition on proven risk- management techniques.” When senators meet to debate changes, “our hope is that they change ‘must’ to ‘may,’” Talbott said. Citigroup already appears to expect the Volcker Rule may not be a rule per se. The bank — the world’s largest financial institution — is still expanding its proprietary trading unit, Bloomberg reported last week: Citigroup is trying to preserve the unit, which produces about $100 million of annual revenue, as banks face a proposed ban on proprietary trading dubbed by President Barack Obama as the Volcker rule. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit fed concern among the unit’s remaining employees that Citigroup’s commitment might wither under U.S. pressure when he told a bailout oversight panel this month that banks shouldn’t use their own money to speculate, the people said.

Read the full article →

The Volcker Rule: Bank Lobbyists Fight To Change ‘Must’ To ‘May’

March 22, 2010

As you may just have heard the devil is in the details. Or, in the case of the latest push to reform Wall Street, the devil is in whether or not the details will actually be mandatory. Bank lobbyists looking to weaken the Volcker Rule are targeting its language, Business Week reports. The financial reform bill unveiled by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D – Conn.) last week includes a rule prohibiting commercial banks from owning or investing in hedge funds, private equity funds or proprietary trading operations. The mandate, one of two chief reforms proposed by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, was revealed by President Obama in January. Dodd’s bill stops short of implementing the Volcker Rule. Instead, it requires that the government “shall issue final regulations implementing” the ban. But lobbyists for the financial industry argue that it hasn’t yet been shown that the rule — which according to one somewhat questionable estimate would cost the top eight banks $11 billion next year — would effectively curb any of the behaviors that led to the last financial crisis. Accordingly, industry reps are reportedly scrambling to replace ‘shall’ with something a whole lot less stringent. As one lobbyist told Business Week : “We believe the regulators should have the discretion to deal with the situation on a company-by-company basis,” said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington-based trade group. “You can’t have a blanket prohibition on proven risk- management techniques.” When senators meet to debate changes, “our hope is that they change ‘must’ to ‘may,’” Talbott said. Citigroup already appears to expect the Volcker Rule may not be a rule per se. The bank — the world’s largest financial institution — is still expanding its proprietary trading unit, Bloomberg reported last week: Citigroup is trying to preserve the unit, which produces about $100 million of annual revenue, as banks face a proposed ban on proprietary trading dubbed by President Barack Obama as the Volcker rule. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit fed concern among the unit’s remaining employees that Citigroup’s commitment might wither under U.S. pressure when he told a bailout oversight panel this month that banks shouldn’t use their own money to speculate, the people said.

Read the full article →

Citigroup Aids Unit as Volcker Rule Spurs Defectors

March 16, 2010

By Bradley Keoun March 16 (Bloomberg) — Citigroup Inc. , the bank 27 percent owned by the U.S., is bolstering a unit that trades stocks with the lender’s own money after a proposed government ban of proprietary trading helped spur eight of its 22 employees to defect, people with direct knowledge of the matter said. Kevin Russell , head of Americas stock trading, told employees and securities firms supporting the unit last week that Citigroup may increase the group’s trading limits and capital, according to the people. The New York-based bank will replace some or all of the six portfolio managers and analysts who left since their leader, Matt Carpenter , quit in February, according to two of the people, who declined to be identified because the unit’s operations are confidential. Citigroup is trying to preserve the unit, which produces about $100 million of annual revenue , as banks face a proposed ban on proprietary trading dubbed by President Barack Obama as the Volcker rule. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit fed concern among the unit’s remaining employees that Citigroup’s commitment might wither under U.S. pressure when he told a bailout oversight panel this month that banks shouldn’t use their own money to speculate, the people said. “Vikram the academic can put on his academic hat and conclude that the Volcker rule makes sense,” said Brad Hintz , an analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. who follows the securities industry. “On the other hand, the Volcker rule hasn’t been passed, nobody knows what the capital rules are going to be, so why on earth not take advantage of it?” Moore Capital Carpenter departed as head of the so-called long-short equity unit along with deputy Matt Newton for hedge fund Moore Capital Management LP, according to the people. The long-short unit oversees more than $1 billion of assets, and tries to hedge against economic and market risks by matching bullish stock bets with bearish holdings in the same or related industries, said a person familiar with its operations. Although Carpenter had begun interviewing with several hedge funds last year, he told Citigroup executives his decision to leave was partly influenced by Obama’s announcement of the Volcker rule, people briefed on the discussions said. The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker , now an Obama adviser who has said banks supported by federal deposit insurance shouldn’t be allowed to engage in proprietary trading or own hedge funds or private-equity firms. Russell called the other securities firms to make sure they didn’t scale back the amount of stock analysis or other attention they give the long-short group, or take advantage of the knowledge of its trading positions, the people said. He indicated that the bank was in the business to stay , they said. Pandit Speaks “Proprietary trading represents an extremely small fraction of our revenue and an even smaller commitment of capital,” spokesman Stephen Cohen said. Any increase in the unit’s capital will be matched by reductions in other areas, so the overall allocation to proprietary trading in Citigroup’s stock-trading division will remain flat or down slightly, a person familiar with the bank’s operations said. Citigroup is the third-largest bank in the U.S. by assets, behind Bank of America Corp., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. At the Congressional Oversight Panel hearing in Washington on March 4, Pandit, 53, defined a proprietary trading unit as one that doesn’t interact with clients and gets stock analysis and other research from outside securities firms. That’s the model of the long-short equity group, which is isolated from the rest of Citigroup’s operations on its trading floor in downtown Manhattan. Dodd’s Legislation “Proprietary trading is not a big part of our business at all,” Pandit said. “You’re using the company’s capital, and I don’t believe you should use, banks should use capital to speculate that way.” Senator Christopher Dodd , the Connecticut Democrat who runs the Senate Banking Committee, unveiled legislation yesterday to overhaul the financial industry that potentially empowers regulators to break up large financial firms, supervise hedge funds and ban proprietary trading at banks. The long-short unit is one of at least five proprietary trading teams in the bank’s stock-trading division, the person said. Other methods include using computers and formulas to analyze trading data, betting on the probability of corporate events and trying to exploit irregular gaps between a company’s security classes, the person said. Trading Units Across the company, proprietary trading units produced about 2 percent of Citigroup’s 2009 revenue, or about $1.6 billion, a person close to the bank said. They accounted for about $10 billion of the bank’s total assets, or 0.5 percent of the $1.86 trillion balance sheet , said the person. The data don’t include Phibro LLC, a proprietary energy- trading business that the bank sold last year rather than face government scrutiny of head trader Andrew Hall’s $100 million pay package. “We have exited or moved to Citi Holdings the vast majority of proprietary trading businesses, reduced the capital committed to these activities and have no plans to increase the total capital committed to them,” Cohen said. Citi Holdings is a $547 billion group of “non-core” businesses that Pandit has tagged for eventual disposal. “In many cases, we use learning from our proprietary trading activity to create and test new strategies for clients,” Cohen said. Staff Status Three of the long-short group’s 10 portfolio managers have left since Carpenter departed, the people said: J.P. Gravitt, who specializes in technology companies; Hunter Horgan , who focuses on energy; and Jay Kim , a health-care specialist. Gravitt and Horgan are going to Moore, the people said. Energy analyst Sam White quit yesterday to join Moore, the people said. Kim, who left last week, hasn’t disclosed his new job, the people said. Kim’s analyst, Susan Lee , left with him, and Gordon Malin , a financial-company analyst, left to join another hedge fund, SAC Capital Advisors LP, the people said. Horgan and White said they couldn’t comment. Gravitt, Kim, Malin and Lee couldn’t be reached. A spokesman for Moore, Shawn Pattison , declined to comment. Jonathan Gasthalter , a spokesman for SAC Capital, declined to comment. Carpenter isn’t being replaced, and the proprietary trading unit now is overseen jointly by Russell and Sutesh Sharma , who oversees Citigroup’s proprietary stock trading businesses from London, people close to the company said. Incentives to Leave The employees who quit were offered the potential for higher compensation and written contracts from hedge funds instead of Citigroup’s oral assurances, according to the people. Citigroup, which got a $45 billion bailout in 2008 and repaid $20 billion last year, remains subject to government pay curbs because the Treasury Department owns 7.7 billion of its shares . The bank also won’t provide permanent capital commitments to individual traders because of the potential for changing market conditions, the person familiar with the bank’s operations said. The long-short group’s remaining portfolio managers already have seen their individual trading limits climb, in some cases by more than 50 percent, people briefed on the matter said. Since the bank is hiring to replace the portfolio managers who left, total capital allocated to the unit would ultimately be higher than before Carpenter left, people close to the bank said. To contact the reporter on this story: Bradley Keoun in New York at bkeoun@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Citigroup Bolsters Proprietary Trading Arm as Volcker Rule Spurs Defectors

March 15, 2010

By Bradley Keoun March 16 (Bloomberg) — Citigroup Inc. , the bank 27 percent owned by the U.S., is bolstering a unit that trades stocks with the bank’s own money after a proposed government ban of so- called proprietary trading helped spur eight of its 22 employees to defect, people with direct knowledge of the matter said. Kevin Russell , head of Americas stock trading, told employees and securities firms supporting the unit last week that Citigroup may increase the group’s trading limits and capital, according to the people. The New York-based bank will replace some or all of the six portfolio managers and analysts who left since their leader, Matt Carpenter , quit in February, according to two of the people, who declined to be identified because the unit’s operations are confidential. Citigroup is trying to preserve the unit, which produces about $100 million of annual revenue , as banks face a proposed ban on proprietary trading dubbed by President Barack Obama as the Volcker rule. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit fed concern among the unit’s remaining employees that Citigroup’s commitment might wither under U.S. pressure when he told a bailout oversight panel this month that banks shouldn’t use their own money to speculate, the people said. “Vikram the academic can put on his academic hat and conclude that the Volcker rule makes sense,” said Brad Hintz , an analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. who follows the securities industry. “On the other hand, the Volcker rule hasn’t been passed, nobody knows what the capital rules are going to be, so why on earth not take advantage of it?” Moore Capital Carpenter departed as head of the so-called long-short equity unit along with deputy Matt Newton for hedge fund Moore Capital Management LP, according to the people. The long-short unit oversees more than $1 billion of assets, and tries to hedge against economic and market risks by matching bullish stock bets with bearish holdings in the same or related industries, said a person familiar with its operations. Although Carpenter had begun interviewing with several hedge funds last year, he told Citigroup executives his decision to leave was partly influenced by Obama’s announcement of the Volcker rule, people briefed on the discussions said. The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker , now an Obama adviser who has said banks supported by federal deposit insurance shouldn’t be allowed to engage in proprietary trading or own hedge funds or private-equity firms. Russell called the other securities firms to make sure they didn’t scale back the amount of stock analysis or other attention they give the long-short group, or take advantage of the knowledge of its trading positions, the people said. He indicated that the bank was in the business to stay , they said. Pandit Speaks “Proprietary trading represents an extremely small fraction of our revenue and an even smaller commitment of capital,” spokesman Stephen Cohen said. Any increase in the unit’s capital will be matched by reductions in other areas, so the overall allocation to proprietary trading in Citigroup’s stock-trading division will remain flat or down slightly, a person familiar with the bank’s operations said. At the Congressional Oversight Panel hearing in Washington on March 4, Pandit, 53, defined a proprietary trading unit as one that doesn’t interact with clients and gets stock analysis and other research from outside securities firms. That’s the model of the long-short equity group, which is isolated from the rest of Citigroup’s operations on its trading floor in downtown Manhattan. “Proprietary trading is not a big part of our business at all,” Pandit said. “You’re using the company’s capital, and I don’t believe you should use, banks should use capital to speculate that way.” Trading Units Senator Christopher Dodd , the Connecticut Democrat who runs the Senate Banking Committee, unveiled legislation yesterday to overhaul the financial industry that potentially empowers regulators to break up large financial firms, supervise hedge funds and ban proprietary trading at banks. The long-short unit is one of at least five proprietary trading teams in the bank’s stock-trading division, the person said. Other methods include using computers and formulas to analyze trading data, betting on the probability of corporate events and trying to exploit irregular gaps between a company’s security classes, the person said. Across the company, proprietary trading units produced about 2 percent of Citigroup’s 2009 revenue, or about $1.6 billion, a person close to the bank said. They accounted for about $10 billion of the bank’s total assets, or 0.5 percent of the $1.86 trillion balance sheet , said the person. Citi Holdings The data don’t include Phibro LLC, a proprietary energy- trading business that the bank sold last year rather than face government scrutiny of head trader Andrew Hall’s $100 million pay package. “We have exited or moved to Citi Holdings the vast majority of proprietary trading businesses, reduced the capital committed to these activities and have no plans to increase the total capital committed to them,” Cohen said. Citi Holdings is a $547 billion group of “non-core” businesses that Pandit has tagged for eventual disposal. “In many cases, we use learning from our proprietary trading activity to create and test new strategies for clients,” Cohen said. Three of the long-short group’s 10 portfolio managers have left since Carpenter departed, the people said: J.P. Gravitt, who specializes in technology companies; Hunter Horgan , who focuses on energy; and Jay Kim , a health-care specialist. Gravitt and Horgan are going to Moore, the people said. Energy analyst Sam White quit yesterday to join Moore, the people said. Staff Status Kim, who left last week, hasn’t disclosed his new job, the people said. Kim’s analyst, Susan Lee , left with him, and Gordon Malin , a financial-company analyst, left to join another hedge fund, SAC Capital Advisors LP, the people said. Horgan and White said they couldn’t comment. Gravitt, Kim, Malin and Lee couldn’t be reached. A spokesman for Moore, Shawn Pattison , declined to comment. Jonathan Gasthalter , a spokesman for SAC Capital, declined to comment. Carpenter isn’t being replaced, and the proprietary trading unit now is overseen jointly by Russell and Sutesh Sharma , who oversees Citigroup’s proprietary stock trading businesses from London, people close to the company said. The employees who quit were offered the potential for higher compensation and written contracts from hedge funds instead of Citigroup’s oral assurances, according to the people. Citigroup, which got a $45 billion bailout in 2008 and repaid $20 billion last year, remains subject to government pay curbs because the Treasury Department owns 7.7 billion of its shares . Permanent Capital The bank also won’t provide permanent capital commitments to individual traders because of the potential for changing market conditions, the person familiar with the bank’s operations said. The long-short group’s remaining portfolio managers already have seen their individual trading limits climb, in some cases by more than 50 percent, people briefed on the matter said. Since the bank is hiring to replace the portfolio managers who left, total capital allocated to the unit would ultimately be higher than before Carpenter left, people close to the bank said. To contact the reporter on this story: Bradley Keoun in New York at bkeoun@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Dodd Decision A Surprise To Reformers

March 11, 2010

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s decision to break off negotiations with Republicans and go it alone on financial regulatory reform legislation came as a shock to some reformers. “To be honest, a lot of us were surprised,” said one consumer advocate closely involved in financial reform efforts. “It seemed like a deal of some sort was imminent and on track.” The advocate noted that Dodd’s decision was likely influenced by the outcry from progressives and other pro-reform groups who argued that Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat not seeking reelection this year, was giving Republicans and Wall Street-friendly Democrats too much sway over the legislation. Dodd’s original reform proposal in November had called for a strong, independent consumer-focused agency to protect borrowers from predatory lenders. “At the end of the day, though, there is only so much that reform advocates were willing to give on this,” the advocate said. “And because of the context — what the banks did to the economy and the bailouts — reformers have a lot of high ground right now. Democrats just don’t benefit from teaming up with the banks and losing the interest groups.” Dodd’s partner in the negotiations, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), reportedly pushed to exclude nonbank lenders like finance companies, payday lenders and pawnbrokers from the legislation’s reach. The Independent Community Bankers of America, the leading advocacy group representing the nation’s community banks, wants tougher oversight of the largely under-regulated network of nonbank lenders. “The last thing we want is the world we have today,” Steve Verdier, senior vice president and director of Congressional relations for ICBA, said in an interview. “Community banks have examinations every 12 to 18 months. The rest of the financial industry doesn’t have anybody. It’s a terrible situation for consumers.” Reform-minded groups have strongly advocated for reining in nonbanks and banks alike. “Let’s just supervise them all, protect the consumers and not leave any loopholes,” Verdier said. But while the group — among the most powerful on Capitol Hill — supports strengthening consumer protection, it doesn’t want an independent consumer-focused agency targeting community banks. Bank regulators should keep that authority, Verdier said. Federal bank regulators have been strongly criticized for their consumer protection record, which many have called lax and ineffective. Dodd was reportedly willing to negotiate on these key points — to the detriment of consumers, consumer groups and reformers argue. On Thursday morning, in announced his decision, Dodd stated: “The proposal that I’ll offer on Monday does reflect a lot of the ideas that Bob Corker and others have brought to the table. It was important to put a proposal on the table, short of a proposal that reflects some broad bipartisan agreement.” The consumer advocate is concerned that Dodd may be watering down some reforms. “None of this is a matter of demanding perfection,” he told HuffPost. “The advocates are just demanding some meaningful, sensible, and desperately needed changes and aren’t interested in letting politicians build false confidence and have big press conferences while ignoring the central issues.” While the ICBA doesn’t support a new agency, it does support other elements of the financial reform legislation, especially those targeting Wall Street megabanks. Verdier said the group supports tougher regulation and monitoring of systemic risk, ending Too Big to Fail, giving regulators increased authority to shut down failing megabanks, and limiting banks’ Wall Street trading activities (popularly known as the Volcker Rule). “The challenge moving forward, of course, is that the industry seems to have in the neighborhood of 40 votes in the Senate,” the consumer advocate told HuffPost. “And it won’t stand for anything that isn’t written by the lobbyists,” the source added. “That’s how broken Washington is.”

Read the full article →

Volcker Says Too Soon to Cut Stimulus as Economy Emerges From Recession

March 7, 2010

By Rainer Buergin and Philipp Encz March 8 (Bloomberg) — White House adviser Paul Volcker said it’s too soon for U.S. policy makers to withdraw the stimulus measures and interest-rate cuts used to fight the worst slump since the Great Depression. “This is not the time to take aggressive tightening action, either fiscally or monetary-wise,” said Volcker in an interview in Berlin March 6, pointing to “high” unemployment . “So I think we have to, as best as we can, maintain the expectation that it will be taken care of in a timely way.” The Federal Reserve and the Treasury are trying to withdraw the emergency measures introduced during the financial crisis without causing a relapse in the economy. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Feb. 24 the U.S. is in a “nascent” recovery that still requires keeping interest rates near zero “for an extended period” to spur demand once stimulus wanes. At the same time, the Treasury’s resources are under strain from the loss of 8.4 million jobs since December 2007, stimulus spending, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and health care programs. The Obama administration predicts the budget deficit will swell to a record $1.6 trillion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. Volcker, whose recommendations inspired the restrictions on bank trading that President Barack Obama sent to Congress last week, said U.S. lawmakers must now prove they can pass the “comprehensive” legislation needed to prevent another financial crisis. Test “That is the test,” said Volcker. “Congress has not been very good at passing any comprehensive legislation in various areas.” Banking rules “shouldn’t be a matter of partisan dispute. But everything seems to be infected by partisan disputes in the U.S. now.” The so-called Volcker Rule would ban banks from hazardous trading and imposes limits on how large they can grow. Obama’s plan faces resistance in Congress. Lawmakers including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd have called the plan a political ploy and said it could complicate efforts to overhaul rules governing financial companies. “There is a lot of lobbying out there on the other side,” Volcker said. Volcker, who said he hasn’t seen the “precise language” of Obama’s legislation, said he doesn’t believe the proposal has been “watered down.” Asked whether responsibility for consumer protection should be given to the Fed, Volcker said it’s “not really central to the banking supervision question.” “It is a very important question politically and some people think it’s the most important single element, but I think it’s not an element that’s crucial in terms of my concerns,” he said. Ingenuity The former Fed chairman said regulators will have to clearly define proprietary trading when supervising banks. “The legislation is quite clear that hedge funds and private-equity funds are prohibited for banks and so is proprietary trading, but then you have to interpret,” he said. “Banks are ingenious in saying: ‘Well, this isn’t exactly a hedge fund.’ So the supervisor’s going to have to say: ‘No, sorry, whatever you call it, we call it a hedge fund.’” Volcker was in the German capital to give a speech to the American Academy in Berlin, a trans-Atlantic research institute. In his address, he pointed to the “abuse” of derivatives to massage Greece’s budget deficit as a reason to tighten regulation of the securities. To contact the reporter on this story: Rainer Buergin in Berlin at rbuergin1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Volcker Says Too Early to Withdraw U.S. Monetary, Fiscal Stimulus Measures

March 6, 2010

By Rainer Buergin and Philipp Encz March 6 (Bloomberg) — White House adviser Paul Volcker said it’s too soon for U.S. policy makers to withdraw the stimulus measures and interest-rate cuts used to fight the worst slump since the Great Depression. “This is not the time to take aggressive tightening action, either fiscally or monetary-wise,” said Volcker in an interview in Berlin today, pointing to “high” unemployment . “So I think we have to, as best as we can, maintain the expectation that it will be taken care of in a timely way.” The Federal Reserve and the Treasury are trying to withdraw the emergency measures introduced during the financial crisis without causing a relapse in the economy. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said last week the U.S. is in a “nascent” recovery that still requires keeping interest rates near zero “for an extended period” to spur demand once stimulus wanes. At the same time, the Treasury’s resources are under strain from the loss of 8.4 million jobs since December 2007, stimulus spending, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and health care programs. The Obama administration predicts the budget deficit will swell to a record $1.6 trillion during the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. Volcker, who wrote the blueprint for banking proposals that President Barack Obama sent to Congress this week, said U.S. lawmakers must now prove they can pass the “comprehensive” legislation needed to prevent another financial crisis. Test “That is the test,” said Volcker. “Congress has not been very good at passing any comprehensive legislation in various areas.” Banking rules “shouldn’t be a matter of partisan dispute. But everything seems to be infected by partisan disputes in the U.S. now.” The so-called Volcker Rule bans banks from hazardous trading and imposes limits on how large they can grow. Obama’s plan faces resistance in Congress. Lawmakers including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd have called the plan a political ploy and said it could complicate efforts to overhaul rules governing financial companies. “There is a lot of lobbying out there on the other side,” Volcker said. Volcker, who hasn’t seen the “precise language” of Obama’s legislation, said he doesn’t believe the bill has been “watered down.” Asked whether responsibility for consumer protection should be given to the Fed, Volcker said it’s “not really central to the banking supervision question.” “It is a very important question politically and some people think it’s the most important single element, but I think it’s not an element that’s crucial in terms of my concerns,” he said. Ingenuity The former Fed chairman said regulators will have to clearly define proprietary trading when supervising banks. “The legislation is quite clear that hedge funds and private-equity funds are prohibited for banks and so is proprietary trading, but then you have to interpret,” he said. “Banks are ingenious in saying: ‘Well, this isn’t exactly a hedge fund.’ So the supervisor’s going to have to say: ‘No, sorry, whatever you call it, we call it a hedge fund.’” Volcker was in Berlin to give a speech to the American Academy and pointed to the “abuse” of derivatives to hide the scale of Greece’s budget deficit as an example highlighting the need for tighter regulation of the securities. “Surely the recent revelations about the use (and abuse) of complex derivatives in obscuring the extent of Greek financial obligations reinforces the need for greater transparency and less complexity,” Volcker said in his speech. To contact the reporter on this story: Rainer Buergin in Berlin at rbuergin1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

`Volcker Rule’ Draft Signals Obama Wants to Ease Financial Market Impact

March 4, 2010

By Rebecca Christie and Phil Mattingly March 4 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration’s legislative draft of the so-called Volcker Rule incorporated exemptions that may ease the impact on financial markets should it be enacted. President Barack Obama yesterday sent Congress the five- page proposal to ban proprietary trading and block mergers that give banks more than a 10 percent market share, as measured by liabilities other than insured deposits. It also would bar banks from owning or investing in hedge funds and private equity firms. The rule, which is aimed at reducing the risk of another financial crisis, exempts mergers that exceed the market-share limit in cases when a firm acquires a failing bank with regulators’ approval. Also left out are trading in Treasury and agency securities, including debt issued by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Such exemptions may help to avoid market disruptions that could affect small investors, said Chris Rupkey , chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. “The market is made up of many unseen hands with different objectives and investment horizons, and if you pull out the speculators making short term bets, like prop trading banks, then” an individual investor is “going to be the one who suffers,” Rupkey said. Prop refers to proprietary trading. In a memo accompanying the plan, the administration said it doesn’t want to interfere with market-making or any hedging related to serving customers. Opposition in Senate The bill, named for its main proponent, former Federal Reserve Chairman and White House adviser Paul Volcker , is designed to reduce risk-taking by banks. It faces an uncertain path in the Senate, where it has already drawn criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. The proposed limit on liabilities is similar to an existing cap on bank deposits. U.S. commercial banks held $10.4 trillion in liabilities as of Feb. 17, according to data from the Fed. JPMorgan Chase & Co. held $1.5 trillion of total commercial-bank liabilities as of Dec. 31, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. had $1.3 trillion and New York-based Citigroup Inc. $1 trillion. An exception would be made for acquisitions of “one or more banks in default or in danger of default.” The language indicates acquisitions similar to those that took place during the worst of the financial crisis might be allowed. Smaller Acquisitions The proposal also would allow banks that already are over the 10 percent limit to acquire small banks if that would not change their market share. It wouldn’t restrict growth through normal business operations. The legislation calls for a two-year transition, shorter than the five years that House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank , a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would propose when Obama introduced the rule Jan. 21. Industry groups said the transition period isn’t workable as currently proposed. “If the language is included, the transition period should be extended to account for existing contracts,” said Scott Talbott , senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable. Obama asked Congress in January to adopt the Volcker Rule to restrict risk-taking after financial companies worldwide reported more than $1.7 trillion in writedowns and credit losses following the subprime mortgage market collapse in 2007. Lawmakers including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd have suggested the plan has a political motive and said it could complicate efforts to overhaul rules governing financial companies. Proprietary Trading The proposal also would tighten supervision, and capital and liquidity requirements, on non-bank companies engaged in proprietary trading. The president’s proposal would bar banks from owning or controlling hedge funds and private-equity firms. Banks also would be prohibited from acting as a prime broker to hedge funds they advise. Banks would be allowed some leeway for investments in small businesses and projects that have a public welfare aspect, according to the draft legislative language. The House of Representatives in December passed regulatory- overhaul legislation including Pennsylvania Democrat Paul E. Kanjorski ’s plan giving regulators power to require companies to divest businesses deemed systemically risky. The Obama proposal would require regulators to break up those companies. Kanjorski Reaction Kanjorski called the administration’s legislative draft a “fair, practical and foresighted proposal,” in a statement yesterday. “It complements my efforts to ensure that American taxpayers should no longer be on the hook for bailouts of the financial industry,” he said. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, is negotiating with Republican senators aiming to reach a bipartisan compromise on measures guarding against potential threats to the U.S. economy and resolving systemically important companies when they fail. In a hearing last month, Dodd said the Obama administration proposal was seen by some lawmakers as “transparently political and not substantive.” Obama outlined the proposal alongside Volcker, chairman of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board, who has advocated restrictions on banks to limit risks after the U.S. government set aside $700 billion in 2008 to bail out companies including Citigroup and Bank of America. To contact the reporters on this story: Rebecca Christie in Washington at rchristie4@bloomberg.net ; Phil Mattingly in Washington at pmattingly@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Volcker Says U.S. Social Security the `Bedrock’ for Securing Retirement

February 19, 2010

By Margaret Collins Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) — Social Security can be reformed to secure Americans’ retirement savings, said Paul Volcker , a top adviser to President Barack Obama . “Social Security is the bedrock of any retirement policy in this country,” said Volcker, chairman of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, at a retirement forum in New York yesterday. “There’s plenty of room and plenty of need for retirement programs on top of that.” Having enough income for retirement has become a focus of the administration amid concerns that Americans will outlive their savings. The president’s fiscal 2011 budget proposed changing government rules to allow annuities within 401(k) plans and requiring most businesses that don’t offer retirement accounts to automatically enroll employees in direct-deposit Individual Retirement Accounts. “None of them stand out as the great savior,” Volcker said of the government proposals. Reforming Social Security is “doable,” he said, in part by “jacking up the retirement age” and changing the benefit calculation so that it won’t rise as fast for higher-income Americans as it does under existing law. About 63 percent of low-income workers may retire without any savings to supplement Social Security, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, and 78 million Americans don’t have retirement plans through their employers, according to the government. Estate Tax Volcker spoke at an event organized by Axa Equitable Life Insurance Co., a unit of Axa SA , Europe’s second-biggest insurer. About 350 financial professionals and clients of the insurer attended, according to Michael Arcaro , a spokesman for Axa Equitable. The 82-year-old Volcker also said allowing the federal estate tax to expire Jan. 1 was “ridiculous” and “illustrative of the dysfunction in government.” If Congress doesn’t act, the estate tax will be reinstated in 2011 at a 55 percent rate on estates valued at more than $1 million. Volcker was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987. — Editors: Rick Levinson , Sharon L. Lynch . To contact the reporter on this story: Margaret Collins in New York at mcollins45@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Volcker Still ‘Just A Photo Op’?

February 5, 2010

When Paul Volcker was first appointed chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, he really didn’t expect to have much influence. Sondra Gotlieb, Volcker’s friend and associate from when they both lived in Washington during the Reagan presidency, says that the former Fed chair told her that the position was a public relations stunt: “I’m just a photo op,” Volcker told her. “All they wanted was my picture for the press.” And for more than a year, Volcker’s assessment seemed about right. “Everyone knew he didn’t have the president’s ear no matter what his title was,” Gotlieb writes. But all that seems to have changed in the past several weeks, after the president, as part of his financial reform package, proposed that Congress adopt a key reform measure that Volcker has long championed. The “Volcker Rule,” as the new regulation is known, would prohibit commercial banks from owning or investing in hedge funds, private equity funds or “proprietary trading” operations. Volcker, who stands a towering 6’7″ tall, was at the president’s side during the announcement. But whether his ideas for reform will be enacted into law is still unclear: Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has indicated that he may not amend the Senate’s reform package to include the rule, saying the administration is “getting precariously close” to asking for too much.

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs’s Corrigan Opposes `Volcker Rule’ to Limit Bank Risk-Taking

February 4, 2010

By Christine Harper and Phil Mattingly Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Banks should be permitted to own and sponsor hedge funds and private-equity funds because they promote “best industry practice,” and any risks can be managed, said Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ’s E. Gerald Corrigan . Corrigan, 68, opposes restrictions advocated by his former boss Paul Volcker and by U.S. President Barack Obama that would prohibit banks and financial holding companies from owning or sponsoring such funds, he said today at a Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington. “The financial risks associated with such ownership or sponsorship can be effectively managed and limited by means short of outright prohibition,” Corrigan said in prepared remarks. “Subject to appropriate safeguards, regulated bank holding company presence in the hedge fund and private-equity fund space can help to better promote best industry practice.” Obama on Jan. 21 introduced a proposal he called the Volcker Rule to limit the size and trading activities of financial institutions and reduce risk-taking. Senator Richard Shelby , top Republican on the Banking Committee, faulted the administration for waiting too long to introduce the measure. “The manner in which the president introduced these new ideas is not conducive to developing thoughtful, comprehensive reform legislation,” Shelby said in his prepared remarks. ‘Pull the Trigger’ Senate Banking Chairman Committee Christopher Dodd , who said during a Feb. 2 hearing with Volcker that he “strongly” supports the idea, scolded the administration for playing politics by introducing the plan so late in the regulatory overhaul debate. “We’re now getting to the point where we need to pull the trigger,” Dodd said in his opening statement today. Committee members who have been working across party lines to reach compromise on a final bill are expected to present their plans to Dodd and Shelby soon, Dodd said today. “It’s tough to take on another issue at this point,” he said. Analysts including David Trone at Macquarie Group Ltd. have estimated that Volcker’s proposed restrictions on bank activities, including fund sponsorship and so-called proprietary trading, would reduce revenue at Goldman Sachs more than at any other bank. David Viniar , the firm’s chief financial officer, said last month that proprietary trading, or betting the firm’s own money, accounts for roughly 10 percent of annual revenue. Additionally the firm generated $1.17 billion in 2009 from “principal investments,” which include the firm’s own stakes in companies and real estate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management also oversees private equity and hedge funds for clients. Distinctions Urged In his testimony, Corrigan urged a distinction between proprietary trading and “market making” and any hedging and risk-management activities that derive from such market making. “Client-driven market making and the hedging and risk management activities growing out of such market making are natural activities of banks and Bank Holding Companies,” Corrigan said in the text. “As such, these activities are subject to official supervision, including on-site inspections, capital and liquidity standards and various forms of risk- related stress tests.” Before joining Goldman Sachs in 1994, Corrigan spent almost 25 years in the Federal Reserve System, where he was president of the New York Fed and the Minneapolis Fed. In 1979 he became special assistant to Volcker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Corrigan was chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision from 1993 to 1997. Goldman Sachs, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, converted to a bank holding company in September 2008 one week after smaller rival Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. declared bankruptcy. Goldman Sachs became regulated by the Federal Reserve instead of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Corrigan was named chairman of Goldman Sachs Bank USA, the firm’s regulated bank subsidiary. Corrigan said that banks shouldn’t be allowed to put new money into an existing fund without regulatory approval, according to his prepared text. To contact the reporter on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net ; Phil Mattingly in Washington at +1- pmattingly@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Paul Volcker Testimony: Limiting Banks’ Proprietary Activities Would Stabilize The Financial System

February 2, 2010

A day after Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s office indicated that he may scrap the centerpiece of President Obama’s financial regulatory proposal, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker pushed back, appearing before the committee to urge Congress to adopt the plan. Last month, President Obama recommended that Congress implement the ‘Volcker Rule,’ as the reform measure is known, which would prohibit commercial banks from owning or investing in hedge funds, private equity funds or “proprietary trading” operations. Critics have argued that the financial operations Obama seeks to limit are not narrowly enough defined to make the proposal clear or effective. But in his testimony today , Volcker disputed the criticism: “every banker” he speaks with, Volcker said, “knows very well what ‘proprietary trading’ means.” “As with any new regulatory approach, authority provided to the appropriate supervisory agency should be carefully specified. It also needs to be broad enough to encompass efforts sure to come to circumvent the intent of the law. We do not need or want a new breed of bank-based funds that in all but name would function as hedge or equity funds.” Volcker also pushed back against critics who hold that curbing commercial banks’ speculative activities would doom their profits. Under his eponymous rule, there would be a “range of potentially profitable services that are within the province of commercial banks,” wide enough, he said, “to provide the base for strong, competitive — and profitable — commercial banking organizations, able to stand on their own feet domestically and internationally in fair times and foul.”

Read the full article →

Paulson Says U.S. Was `Close’ to Financial Collapse, Bailout Unavoidable

February 2, 2010

By Michael McKee and Peter Cook Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. economy came “very close” to collapsing into a second Great Depression and the government had no alternative to bailing out financial firms, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said. “There was a time when the credit markets had essentially frozen and when blue chip industrial companies were having trouble raising money,” Paulson said in an interview today on Bloomberg Television. “I knew then we were on the brink.” “We easily could have had unemployment of 20 percent,” he said. “That would have meant millions of additional jobs lost, millions of additional homes lost, trillions more lost in savings. It would have been terrible.” Paulson, who has just published his memoir, “On The Brink,” said he understands the criticisms of the bailouts of financial institutions such as Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc. “In this country, none of us like bailouts,” he said. “I hated the things we had to do. But they were far better than the alternative.” The former secretary said it was harder for policy makers and legislators to deal with the crisis, which deepened after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, because it came just before the election. Election Loomed “The credit crisis couldn’t have come at a worse time,” Paulson said, because members of Congress were reluctant to vote for helping the financial institutions, he said. “When the markets froze, I knew with certainty we were going to see this negative impact many weeks down the road,” Paulson said. “But many members of Congress hadn’t yet seen it in their districts.” The failure of Lehman Brothers was a particularly tough moment, Paulson said. “If you’ve run a Wall Street firm like I have, it’s just a horrible thing to see a firm fail like that and know what is going to happen to the economy.” Unlike Bear Stearns, which was acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. with federal assistance, no buyer could be found for Lehman, which meant the government couldn’t step in, Paulson said. “It would have been loaning into a run” on the bank, he said. “There was not going to be essentially a business to lend to. The Fed had no legal power to lend” under those circumstances, he said. Lehman’s Collapse Among those who lost their jobs was Paulson’s own brother, Richard, who worked for Lehman in Chicago. “Sure, I talked with him,” the former Treasury secretary said. “It was very sad for him. He had significant losses. This is nothing that anybody wanted.” Paulson praised the officials he worked most closely with during the crisis. He described Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke as “really bright, a great economist, a great economic historian.” “Bernanke was able to defy bureaucratic strictures and do what had to be done at a time when we didn’t have other authorities,” Paulson said. “I sleep better at night knowing he is chairman of the Fed.” ‘Cool’ Geithner Timothy F. Geithner , the current Treasury secretary who was then president of the Fed Bank of New York, is “a great crisis manager, cool and calm under pressure,” Paulson said. While Geithner has been subject to criticism of his leadership at Treasury, Paulson said he is “just doing a superb job.” As a leader during a crisis, “you have to do some very unpleasant things and you are going to take some heat for that,” Paulson said. “It’s hard to get a lot of credit for preventing a calamity that no one sees.” Paulson declined to say whether JPMorgan chief executive Jamie Dimon would make a good successor to Geithner. He praised Dimon as a “very strong leader” who was able to pull together a difficult deal to buy Bear Stearns over a weekend. “We’ve got a good Treasury secretary now,” Paulson said. “Jamie is a talent.” New financial regulatory rules need to include the creation of a systemic-risk regulator and the give the government the ability to dismantle failed institutions in an orderly way, Paulson said. President Barack Obama on Jan. 21 urged the adoption of what he called the “Volcker rule” under which commercial banks would be prohibited from owning hedge funds and limited in how much they could trade for their own account. Paul Volcker , who headed the Fed from 1979 to 1987, is scheduled to testify before the Senate Banking Committee today on the plan. Paulson said consideration of the Volcker rule could “divert focus from what really needs to be done” because it’s “aimed at one type of financial institution, and what we absolutely need is a broad approach.” He said his concern “is that we do things that confuse markets, confuse Congress and don’t get things done.” To contact the reporter on this story: Michael McKee in New York at mmckee@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Volcker to Tell Senate Panel Hedge Funds Should Be Allowed to Profit, Fail

February 2, 2010

By Vivien Lou Chen Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker plans to tell the Senate Banking Committee today that hedge funds and private-equity funds should be allowed to both profit and fail, without any expectation of government support. “Managements, stockholders or partners would be at risk, able to profit handsomely or to fail entirely, as appropriate in a competitive free-enterprise system,” Volcker says in remarks prepared for testimony before the panel. The 82-year-old former Fed chairman defends President Barack Obama’s Jan. 21 proposal to limit the size and trading activities of banks, saying it would reduce risk in the financial system while leaving banks with a “wide range” of profitable services to offer. The restrictions are part of a larger effort to deal with future expectations for bailouts, Volcker said. “Hedge funds, private-equity funds, and trading activities unrelated to customer needs and continuing banking relationships should stand on their own, without the subsidies implied by public support for depository institutions,” Volcker says in the text of the speech obtained by Bloomberg News. Volcker draws distinctions among three groups of institutions: hedge funds and private equity funds, which he says aren’t entitled to taxpayer support; commercial banks that take federally insured deposits; and large, interconnected firms whose failure could pose a threat to the broader economy. The former central banker is scheduled to begin his testimony at 2:30 p.m. in Washington. Banks carrying out “essential services” deserve a “safety net,” he says. Capital, Liquidity At the same time, Volcker calls for resolution authority to take control of large, failing financial institutions, in a process that would amount to “euthanasia, not a rescue.” He also asks lawmakers to strengthen regulation of financial firms by imposing stricter requirements for capital and liquidity. “What we plainly need are authority and methods to minimize the occurrence of those failures that threaten the basic fabric of financial markets,” he said. “It is critically important that those institutions, its managers, and its creditors do not assume a public rescue will be forthcoming in time of pressure.” Avoiding Another Crisis Lawmakers are considering measures to overhaul regulation of the financial system to avoid a repeat of the crisis that led to taxpayer-funded bailouts of firms including American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc . and Bank of America Corp. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Financials Index has jumped more than 137 percent since March 6 as the financial system healed. Volcker is among a group of Washington policy makers offering ideas to eliminate the too-big-to-fail policy that led the U.S. government to prop up large firms. Financial regulators have said they lack the authority to unwind some large failing financial firms in an orderly way. The House approved financial-regulatory overhaul legislation in December that would give supervisors the authority to disassemble healthy, well-capitalized financial firms whose size threatens the economy. Senators John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, in December proposed legislation to reinstate the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that split commercial and investment banking. Obama’s proposal, which the president named the “Volcker Rule,” would prohibit banks from owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds, and from running proprietary trading operations for their own profit. The plan is based on an idea recommended by Volcker and builds on a proposal Obama sent to Congress in June for overhauling U.S. rules overseeing Wall Street. Conflicts of Interest In his testimony, Volcker defends the administration’s plan to limit proprietary trading at banks that take federally insured deposits, saying it would reduce the potential for “strong conflicts of interest.” A bank that trades for its own account “will almost inevitably find itself, consciously or inadvertently, acting at cross purposes to the interests of an unrelated commercial customer of a bank,” he says. “I am not so naive as to think that all potential conflicts can or should be expunged from banking or other businesses,” Volcker says. “Neither am I so naive as to think that, even with the best efforts of boards and management, so- called Chinese Walls can remain impermeable against the pressures to seek maximum profit and personal remuneration,” he says, referring to internal barriers firms may use to avert conflicts. To contact the reporter on this story: Vivien Lou Chen in San Francisco at vchen1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: Volcker Is Finally Getting His Due, at Least Till He Gets Snubbed Again

January 25, 2010

It can’t be easy being Paul Volcker. One of the great economists of the modern era, Volcker is best known as the Fed chairman who slayed slagflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He was hired by President Obama to provide economic advice and some adult supervision in an administration that featured as other advisers people like the Marxist-sympathizing Van Jones. But then, when he offered his ideas about regulating the banking industry in a post-bailout era, Volcker was routinely ignored, that is until the president, witnessing the horror (for him and his followers at least) of the election of Scott Brown, a Republican, to fill the Senate seat once held by the late Teddy Kennedy, and the vanishing act of his far left agenda, including socialized medicine. And just like that, presto, the grumpy old man who refused to lower interest rates 30 years ago — acts that Obama would presumably oppose given his support for the reappointment of the current, easy-money loving Fed chairman Ben Bernanke — Volcker is back in vogue. Last week, he was seen alongside the president (with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner standing warily in the background) as Obama unveiled the broad outlines of a financial plan Volcker has been advocating for months now; something that if Obama lives up to his words would make it difficult if not impossible for government-protected banks to mix their risk taking activities like trading esoteric bonds if they want to be protected by taxpayers as Too Big To Fail. On the surface, it would seem like a victory for Volcker and a commonsense move by the White House. After being shunned for months, his ideas like calling for the separation of commercial banking (which includes government protected deposits) and risk-taking investment banking activities denigrated by Geithner and Larry Summers, Obama’s economic advisers and Wall Street mouthpieces, Volcker had won the day. He finally convinced the president of the mountain of evidence that one of the leading contributing factors to the 2008 financial crisis was the a federal law passed in 1999 that allowed risk taking to be combined with commercial banking activities. But Obama’s last minute conversion to Volckerism is, I suspect, less about commonsense and more about politics. As unemployment remains high and Wall Street is now handing out billions in bonuses just a year after being bailed out, the president can call investment banks “fat cats” all he wants. Obama’s policies of the past year: Promised taxes on small businesses to pay for his expansionist government, and protecting banks have led to a dual economy. Unemployment in the construction industry is at around 20% because businesses are hording cash to pay for higher taxes when the financial types who caused the 2008 meltdown and the current Great Recession feast. And now the president is paying the price. Volcker, at 82, may feel as though this is his last act in a long and storied career to do something great, but for my money, there is something unctuous about the great Paul Volcker being used by the president as a political prop. This is, of course, the man who refused to bend to political pressure in the early 1980s, when the Federal Reserve, under his rule, jacked up interest rates to nose bleed levels in an effort to squeeze out inflation but squeezing the economy. His rationale was simple: The short term pain was worth the long term gain of lower inflation, which usually benefits lower income people the most by making goods and services they need more affordable. He was right, and for that, we’re all thankful. But this is a crusade where Volcker isn’t leading the charge. The final proposal (which could come in days, along with I am told further limits on how much “leverage” or borrowing banks may engage in to trade, and new capital requirements) will be hammered out by Obama’s political team, not Volcker. That’s probably one reason my sources on Capitol Hill tell me there’s still a dearth of information on the final product. In other words, they’ve been given no guidance as to how these “reforms” will actually work. “We’ve been directed to a website with a press release covering the president’s announcement last week,” said one Republican staffer. For that reason, look for a watered down proposal that does little to address the notion that banks shouldn’t be able to take risk on the backs of taxpayers. Already, senior officials at Goldman and JP Morgan are telling analysts and investors that the rules will be easily evaded. They’re designed, the Goldman folks assure anyone who asks, to prevent so-called proprietary trading, where Goldman itself comes up with an idea of how to gamble with its own capital, but not trading that begins when a customer makes and order and then the trader follows through with his own bet. For the life of me, I can’t figure out the difference between the two since the firms in both instances are risking their own capital, but Wall Street is making a case that the difference is huge and the firms are flooding Washington as I write this column to influence the legislation. How much of this jockeying for control of the final product Volcker will stand before just calling it quits, is, of course, a matter of debate. For the past year or so, I’ve been reporting that Volcker has been ignored by Obama, shunned as the crazy old man with the wild-ass idea of reimposing something like the Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall, which formally separated commercial banking from risk-taking investment banking ideas. Ironically, he received a better reception from some of his contacts on Wall Street for this plan, who gave him their ideas on how best to make such a separation of risk taking and commercial work given the realities of the modern financial industry. Goldman Sachs, of course, isn’t a commercial bank like Citigroup. It doesn’t have branch offices, and it doesn’t hold checking accounts, and yet under the president’s approach to regulation, the firm is protected like Citigroup as too systemically important to fail even as it trades just about every esoteric bond in creation. Through it all, Volcker accepted all the snubs, that is, until last week when the president woke up and realized he was right, and there was Volcker standing next to the president getting his due, until, that is, he gets snubbed again.

Read the full article →

Jacob Heilbrunn: President Obama: Replace Bernanke With Volcker

January 22, 2010

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is finished. Whether or not you blame Bernanke for the current economic crisis doesn’t even really matter. The fact is that with Senators Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold coming out against renominating Bernanke for a fresh term, Bernanke could, at best, stumble over the finish line, and probably won’t. He’ll have to withdraw. The sooner he does, the better. Already the upheaval and uncertainty has the markets tumbling. But there’s an obvious fix for Obama: nominate 82-year-old Paul Volcker to run the Fed again. It’s time for the seasoned old guy who rescued the American economy in the 1980s to pull off a second act. Already Obama is signing off on Volcker’s prudent recommendations to limit banks from engaging in dicey activities such as owning hedge funds, while taxpayers shoulder the risk. Now he should entrust Volcker with stewardship over the economy. Volcker is a modest man. A few years ago I saw him at a conference at the Four Seasons hotel in Washington, DC and told him, “You’re the guy who saved the economy.” He shrugged his shoulders, laughed, and said, “If you say so.” But lurking underneath his amiable exterior is a shrewd and decisive leader who crushed double-digit inflation in the early 1980s, a feat that set up the economy for several decades of growth. In short, Volcker has credibility. No one is better positioned to crack down on Wall Street excesses and push through genuine deficit reduction than Volcker. Maybe Bernanke, who will continue to serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors until 2020, can watch Volcker and learn from him. By that time, he may be ready to run the Fed himself again. But for now, it’s over. The only question is who Obama will decide to appoint in his stead. It should be an easy decision.

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: The Volcker Plan: First thoughts

January 22, 2010

Chaos. Confusion. Bewilderment. Twenty-four hours after the president’s big announcement there’s still an awful lot of head scratching going on about the Volcker Plan. Perhaps it will now begin to clear. But the rhetoric, the talk, the reporting haven’t cleared up the biggest questions, the most obvious of which is that it’s very difficult to see how this plan a) would have avoided the financial crisis in the first place or b) deals with the largest, hairiest, most chronic problems out there, the tangle of too-big-to-fail and moral hazard. Obama’s statement Thursday only added to the confusion by slinging around terms, like TBTF and proprietary trading, whose technical definitions are murky at best. It was, in short, pretty obviously a political speech, the silliest part of which was his ringing declaration that this plan would insure that “never again” would banks be too big to fail. First, saying “never again” is a dangerous fantasy. Second, even a cursory examination of the plan suggests it’s far less about size and systemic impact and far more about conflict, speculation and politics. Obama continually emphasized deposits, a very Glass-Steagallian concept, as if it was 1933 all over again, and yet as far as I know no deposits were lost because bankers went gambling, and indeed, because of deposit insurance, no consumer lost deposits because of the crisis. Similarly, prop trading, hedge funds and private equity may scare people, but those activities, narrowly defined (as they will be by the banks and their lawyers and lobbyists), had nothing to do with the subprime and structured finance meltdown either; in some cases, prop trading helped out these firms. If you define, on the other hand, prop trading with investing bank capital (that is, deposits) in profit-making efforts, then everything from credit cards to corporate lending to structured finance might fit under that capacious awning. Banks invest other people’s money for their own profits. That’s what they do. Where then is the line drawn? It’s easy to say that trading for your own book would apply, but what if you sell your loans into the market, then trade on that market? What if you trade to remain in the deal or information flow or to provide liquidity? Where does securitization fit into all this? Obama also mentioned plans to install some form of cap on assets at risk, although the papers today described an enforcement mechanism that was hardly draconian: a ban on acquisitions as a bank approached that cap, although organic growth would be allowed to continue. This raises a host of questions. What’s the cap? How is it determined? Why the emphasis on acquisitions — as opposed to automatic hikes in capital and leverage, or divestitures? (Many banks grew by acquisition, like Bank of America Corp. [NYSE:BAC], Citigroup Inc. [NYSE:C] and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. [NYSE:JPM], but high-octane risk-takers like Goldman, Sachs & Co. [NYSE:GS] and, of course, Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. did not for the most part. In the case of Lehman, the most stable part of the company came from an acquisition, Neuberger Berman.) For all of that, the real problem with the cap is how dangerously crude it is. Risk is dynamic and, as we know, results from interconnection as much as sheer size. A cap on assets at risk will not get us to the real issue, which is where assets are dangerously pooling. And, in fact, because it would tend to become the metric of choice for risk, it may well distract regulators from looking deeper, particularly as time passes. What kind of system does Obama envision here? The big banks will remain big, even if they give up some hedge funds, private equity and narrowly defined prop trading. Institutions cross-dressing as banks, like Goldman or Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS), may choose to surrender holding company status and go it alone again (or they may not once they’ve read the fine print). But it’s very difficult to see how they will suddenly and significantly shrink in size and, more importantly, shed their well-deserved statuses, because of their dense interconnectivity, as systemic risks. The clearest part of this plan is to eliminate a few conflicts, most of which exist, as Lloyd Blankfein testified last week, among sophisticated investors who should presumably know what they’re doing (although we should be skeptical that anyone truly knows what they’re doing when it comes to the markets). The clear hope, particularly from the Volcker camp, is that this plan will strip out much of the speculation from regulated “banks.” That is the heart of this problem, but speculation is a concept mired in ambiguity. Your speculation is my investment. My investment was an investment until it went bad and became a speculation. Your hedge is my bet. My hedge is my bet. Where is that line drawn, not only on vehicles we fully understand, but also on complex synthetic instruments that, at times, can arguably flash both traits at the same time? Might the world be a better place if we could shrink the level of speculation that has — more debate unburdened by empirical facts — no real economic value? Undoubtedly. But to do so might well mean eliminating entire classes of instruments (which Volcker seems happily willing to do) and loading the system down with so many new rules, regulations and definitions that compliance might be even more of an impossible task than it is today. The old cliché here is that the two groups that profit most from these situations are lawyers and accountants. That’s undoubtedly true. But it also gives tremendous power (and the countervailing aversion to using it) to regulators. Ignored throughout this crisis is the dynamic, perhaps deeper than regulatory capture, between rule making (even of a deregulatory nature) and regulatory failure. The attempt to capture a complex and ever-changing reality through the net of rules is a loser’s game and an invitation to look the other way. Is this really the Volcker Plan? Well, he was standing there, though both the rhetoric and substance of the plan feel like it was massaged by many White House hands, from Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers to David Axelrod and his political crew. In the run-up to this announcement, Volcker, who the political reporters continue to insist had no stature in the administration despite reporting suggesting that Obama turned to him late last year, emphasized that the key fault line in banking was between those institutions that were vital parts of the payment system, presumably because of their exposure to the retail economy, and those that weren’t, wholesale operations like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. That at least made sense. Volcker seemed concerned with TBTF, moral hazard and excessive pay, but he offered no mechanisms to defuse them. And he seemed confident that some new split between true banks and risk-taking enterprises was in the works. Based on details we have so far, and they’re not only remarkably sketchy but about to be put through the congressional meat grinder, the kind of stable, safe, profitable financial system he envisioned is not a lot closer to reality. And that’s not even wrestling with the question of this new system’s effect on Main Street. – Robert Teitelman Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal.

Read the full article →

Charles H. Green: Wall Street, We Have a (Simple) Problem

January 12, 2010

Let’s keep it simple. The first step toward dealing with a problem is admitting you have a problem. I try to stay away from politics in this blog. But I know something about business, trust and society. And when issues of business trust arise, they need to be written about. The fact that some might view this as “political” is a deplorable bit of collateral damage brought about in great part by those who have abused business and trust in the first place. So much has been written about the problem with our financial sector that it’s easy to become numbed. So let’s keep it very, very simple. Does the financial sector “get it?” Never mind the suggestion of the President of the United States that they don’t. How about financial eminence grise Paul Volcker? Here’s what Volcker had to say about excessive compensation at a high level bankers’ conference: “Has there been one financial leader to say this is really excessive? Wake up, gentlemen. Your response, I can only say, has been inadequate.” Translation: too many don’t get it. Again, let’s keep it simple. The financial sector has grown, grown and grown in recent years. First, some perspective on profit and compensation growth from the IMF’s former chief economist: From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007. Then, some perspective on the financial sector as a percentage of GDP from Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman: Even during the “go-go years,” the bull market of the 1960s, finance and insurance together accounted for less than 4 percent of G.D.P. The relative unimportance of finance was reflected in the list of stocks making up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which until 1982 contained not a single financial company… On the eve of the current crisis, finance and insurance accounted for 8 percent of G.D.P., more than twice their share in the 1960s. By early last year, the Dow contained five financial companies — giants like A.I.G., Citigroup and Bank of America. Some say these data don’t account for the relative importance and innovation created by the financial sector. Here’s what Paul Volcker had to say about such claims: [Volcker] said that financial services in the United States had increased its share of value added from 2 per cent to 6.5 per cent, but he asked: “Is that a reflection of your financial innovation, or just a reflection of what you’re paid?” [a clearly irritated Mr Volcker said that] the biggest innovation in the industry over the past 20 years had been the cash machine…”I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence.” Let’s keep it simple. Forget the mind-numbing details of what Warren Buffet called “financial weapons of mass destruction.” There are some simple facts we need to remember. This is a legitimate social question: not just a business question, and surely not just a political question. The financial sector has gotten too big. It pays itself too much. There are plenty of fine people in the industry, and I’ve had the privilege of working with many; but on balance, perhaps not enough. Too much of the sector is built and managed on the basis of financial returns only, and on the short-term rather than the long-term. It is not–on balance–an industry being run for the betterment of society. The social benefits of globalized, digitized, productized, market-driven structures have been overwhelmed by the social costs of illiquidity (aka credit freeze), risk protection (aka bailout), opportunity cost (aka our best and brightest designing nano-second trading models) and social misery (aka unemployment). A critical sector of the economy has become–on balance–systemically untrustworthy, and therefore unworthy of being trusted. Sellers’ needs are vastly over-emphasized relative to customers’ needs. On balance, the sector has come to equate ethical behavior with the absence of legally prohibited activity, and to do so unconsciously. Society has a right to demand that its business sector conduct itself in ways that are constructive for society as a whole, not just for shareholders and management. That right supersedes any “right” of corporate entities and their management to do what they want according to some gross misreading of Adam Smith. Let’s keep it simple. Wall Street, we have a (simple) problem.

Read the full article →

Volcker Says `Basic Structure’ of American Economy Will Impede Its Growth

December 11, 2009

By Simon Kennedy and Michael Doermer Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said imbalances in the structure of the U.S. economy pose a bigger challenge than the financial crisis and will impede economic growth for some time. “We have another economic problem which is mixed up in this of too much consumption, too much spending relative to our capacity to invest and to export,” Volcker, an adviser to President Barack Obama , said today in Berlin. “It’s involved with the financial crisis but in a way it’s more difficult than the financial crisis because it reflects the basic structure of the economy.” The Fed, European Central Bank and Bank of England have provided record liquidity to support a recovery from the worst financial crisis since the 1930s and have signaled there is no rush to raise interest rates. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said this week the U.S. economy faces “formidable headwinds,” while the ECB last week left interest rates at a record low. “It’s likely that economic growth is going to be pretty sluggish for a while,” Volcker said in a Bloomberg Television interview. The Obama administration has endorsed a plan by the Group of 20 to rebalance the world economy so that it’s less reliant on U.S. demand. Fed policy makers said Nov. 4 that the economy “has continued to pick up” while constrained by “job losses, sluggish income growth, lower housing wealth and tight credit.” They kept the benchmark interest rate in a range of zero to 0.25 percent and said rates will stay low for an “extended period.” Policy makers meet again next week. To contact the reporters on this story: Simon Kennedy in Paris at at skennedy4@bloomberg.net ; Michel Doermer in Berlin at mdoermer@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Volcker: China’s Rise Underscores The Decline Of The U.S.

September 29, 2009

Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker said the rise of China and other emerging economies has underscored a decline in the comparative economic and intellectual leadership of the U.S.

Read the full article →

Volcker Says Rise of China Underscores Decline in U.S. Economy, Leadership

September 28, 2009

By James Tyson and Michael McKee Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker said the rise of China and other emerging economies has underscored a decline in the comparative economic and intellectual leadership of the U.S. “I don’t know how we accommodate ourselves to it,” Volker, an economic adviser to President Barack Obama , said in an interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose taped yesterday in New York. “You cannot be dependent upon these countries for three to four trillion dollars of your debt and think that they’re going to be passive observers of whatever you do.” The former Fed chairman also said unemployment at 9.7 percent will slow the pace of recovery from the U.S. recession as consumers default on mortgages and consumer loans. Moreover, commercial real estate loans are likely to cause further losses for lenders. “This recovery will be slower,” he said. “We can’t just pump up consumption and pump up housing again.” Group of 20 leaders, meeting in Pittsburgh last week, announced plans for more durable economic growth, including reducing U.S. dependence on overseas capital and cutting the reliance of emerging nations such as China on exports. World leaders decided that the G-20, which includes emerging economies such as China and Brazil, will replace the Group of Eight as the main forum for global economic coordination. The shift illustrates how the excesses that led to the financial crisis have compelled industrial nations to share governance of the world economy. Less Dominant The growth of emerging economies is “symbolic of the relative, less dominant position the United States has, not just in the economy but in leadership, intellectual and otherwise,” Volcker said. The G-20 accounts for about 85 percent of global gross domestic product and was created after a spate of currency devaluations plagued emerging markets from Russia to Thailand in the 1990s. The G-8, which comprises the most advance industrial economies of Europe and North America plus Japan and Russia, accounts for about half of global GDP. China has overtaken Germany to become the world’s third- largest economy and may soon become the biggest exporter. It passed Japan a year ago as the main foreign investor in U.S. government debt. China, Russia, Brazil and India together hold about 42 percent of international reserve assets, excluding gold. Herding Cats “I would like to think that given the history of the past, given the strength, actual and potential of the American economy, we can still provide a kind of indispensable element of leadership here,” Volcker, 82, said. “But it’s not going to be dictatorial, I’ll tell you that. It is very hard to herd these cats together.” Volcker repeated that under a new regulatory structure the Fed should be given primary responsibility for supervising banks rather than a council of regulators led by the U.S. Treasury . The Treasury has “no professional background and no traditions in the area of banking supervision,” Volcker said. “In the distribution of authorities among regulatory institutions, it’s really the Federal Reserve that naturally should to be surveying the whole world, so to speak,” he said. Volcker has criticized the Obama administration’s plan to give the Fed authority to supervise “systemically important” financial firms. Such a designation would imply government readiness to support the firms in a crisis, encouraging excessive risk-taking, he said in said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee on Sept. 24. Independent Agency The central bank should instead oversee bank regulation carried out by an independent agency, Volcker has said. The chairman of that agency could also be a vice chairman of the Fed, to increase accountability and ensure the Fed is fully informed. Volcker is chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, a body created by Obama in February to recommend responses to the crisis. Since January, Volcker has advocated that regulators prohibit financial companies whose collapse would pose a risk to the economy — those considered “too big to fail” — from engaging in certain types of trading and investing. The administration wants stricter oversight for such companies and tighter capital and liquidity requirements. Volcker said the Fed and the White House “were right in providing massive support” to financial markets after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Sept. 15, 2008, and to bail out American International Group. “Faced with those emergencies, they did what they had to do at the time,” he said. Giving Succor While more might have been done ahead of time to prevent Lehman’s demise, “I think if it had been rescued somehow and kept alive, I still think you would have had an attack on the other institutions,” he said. The government’s actions give “succor to the next institution that gets in trouble and to their creditors in particular,” Volcker said. The interview will air in two parts, on Tuesday and Wednesday on PBS, and will be rebroadcast on Wednesday and Thursday on Bloomberg Television channels around the world as part of a new partnership between Rose and Bloomberg. To contact the reporter on this story: James Tyson in Washington at jtyson@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Volcker Says Obama’s Plan to Oversee `Systemically Important’ Firms Flawed

September 24, 2009

By Mike Dorning Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker criticized the Obama administration’s plan to subject “systemically important” financial firms to more stringent regulation by the Fed. Volcker told lawmakers today that such a designation would imply government readiness to support the firms in a crisis, encouraging even more risky behavior in a phenomenon known as “moral hazard.” “Whether they say it or not, that carries the connotation in the market that they’re too big to fail,” Volcker, who is chairman of the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee. Volcker, 82, testified as the House panel begins its consideration of the administration’s proposed regulatory overhaul, which is intended to curb some of the practices blamed for sparking the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. He appeared one day after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came before the committee to make the case for the Obama plan. “The danger is the spread of moral hazard could make the next crisis much bigger,” said Volcker, who serves as an outside economic adviser to Obama. Volcker has criticized key elements of the Obama administration regulatory plan in recent public statements, and his remarks today largely reprised those criticisms. Stricter Controls Volcker also called for stricter controls on commercial banks and bank holding companies than the Obama administration has proposed, saying they should be barred from owning or sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds and forbidden to engage in proprietary trading. He also criticized an administration proposal to create a council of regulatory agencies that would be headed by the Treasury Department. Instead, he called on lawmakers to give the central bank more authority to oversee the financial system. “It’s a natural function for the Federal Reserve,” Volcker said. “There’s no doubt when you get into trouble, when anybody in the financial market gets into trouble, they run to the Federal Reserve.” Volcker said the Fed should coordinate the activities of U.S. agencies that regulate financial institutions. He said the president should nominate a second Fed vice chairman responsible for financial regulation and supervision in order to “pinpoint responsibility” for those activities. Too Much Power The Obama administration plan has also drawn criticism from lawmakers including Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd , Democrat of Connecticut, who have argued that the White House would give the Fed too much power. Instead, Dodd and other members of Congress are leaning toward vesting authority over big banks in the council of regulators that Volcker opposes. Before questioning Volcker, Rep. Mel Watt , a Democrat of North Carolina, offered a nod to the influence of the former Fed chairman, who led the central bank from 1979 to 1987. Under Volcker, the Fed raised its benchmark interest rate as high as 20 percent in 1980 to throttle inflation. “There seem to be two financial gurus,” Watt said, after naming former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan . “You are the other one.” To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →