Their God is Mammon.They dismiss the social consequences and cruelty of their actions and inactions as academic irrelevancies.Suicide ,homelessness ,despair,economic emigration and social breakdown are no more than invconvient bumps on the road under the juggernauts of fiscal policy.Our Governments have tried ,by the sleight of hand of making us shareholders in theses institutions ,to make us all complicit in these barbaridc outrages.
Has anybody complained about these loan companies getting bailed out by the taxpayer then using the bailout to pay mega bonuses to the upper management? No, the government and banking industry want to make it harder for those who depend on the occassional short-term loans to get through any rough patches that come along. This so-called watchdog agency created by Obama should concentrate on the big banks like BofA, JP Morgan-Chase, and Wells Fargo. these companies are trying to foreclose on loans that have been renegotiated through federal programs. Thousands of people are losing their homes because of these companies not keeping track of payments made to their subsidaries which more than a few have gone belly-up and misfiling of paperwork. These mistakes are costing the homeowner billions on top of their homes. Obama’s watchdog should be looking into these breaches of contracts instead of the payday loan industry.
The six very large U.S. bank holding companies — JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Citigroup (C) Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Goldman Sachs (GS) Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley (MS) — share a pressing intellectual problem: They need to explain why they should be allowed to continue with their dangerous business model.
So far their justifications have been weak, and the latest analysis on this topic from Goldman Sachs may even help make the case for breaking up the financial institutions and making them safer.
egislative proposals from two senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Republican David Vitter of Louisiana, have grabbed attention and could move the consensus against the modern megabanks. Under intense pressure from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke conceded recently that the U.S. still has a problem with financial institutions that are seen as too big to fail. Pressed by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, among others, Attorney General Eric Holder is sticking to his story that these companies are too big to prosecute. Cyprus offers another vivid reminder of what happens when banks (S5FINL) become too big to save.
In this context, it is no surprise to see the financial sector wheel out its own intellectual big guns. A frisson no doubt rippled through the financial-lobbying community last week with the release of a report from Goldman Sachs’s equity research team, “Brown-Vitter bill: The impact of potential new capital rules.” This is the A-team at bat, presumably with clearance from the highest levels of management.
Yet instead of providing any kind of rebuttal to the proposals in Brown-Vitter, the report may strengthen the case for breaking up the six megabanks, while also requiring that they and any successors protect themselves with more equity relative to levels of debt. Read the report with five main points in mind.
First, notice the lack of sophistication about bank capital itself. The authors write of banks being required to “hold” capital, as if it were on the asset side of the balance sheet. They go on to construct a mechanistic link that implies that “holding” capital prevents lending.
Banks don’t hold capital. The proposals are concerned with the liability side of the balance sheet — specifically, the extent to which banks fund themselves with debt relative to equity (a synonym for capital in this context). Higher capital requirements push companies to increase their relative reliance on equity funding, thus increasing their ability to absorb losses without becoming distressed or failing. If the transition is properly handled, there is no reason that more equity funding would translate into lower lending.
Second, the Goldman Sachs analysts seem completely unaware of the recent book by Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig, “The Bankers’ New Clothes,” in which those authors — who are top finance professors — debunk the way many bank representatives (including the authors of the Goldman Sachs note) look at issues around capital.
More equity relative to debt on a bank’s balance sheet means that equity and debt become safer: The bigger buffer against losses helps both.
Goldman Sachs makes much of the implications for return on equity, without mentioning any adjustment for risk. Bankers are generally paid based on return on equity without proper risk adjustment. Naturally, they like a great deal of leverage, but the reasoning they use to justify this is fallacious (see Chapter 8 in Admati and Hellwig).
Admati and Hellwig make the broader case that we can run our system much more safely. Goldman Sachs made a big mistake by refusing to take them on directly.
The bank is correct in its assessment that bank equity is higher than it was before the 2007-08 crisis, but this is the natural reaction to a near-death experience. Over the cycle, big banks will again become more leveraged (meaning they will have less equity relative to debt). As a result, Goldman is far too optimistic in its projection of the capital levels that will be needed when the next crisis hits. Current — and likely future – – levels of equity capital are insufficient for our intensely interconnected financial system.
Contrast Goldman Sachs’s note with this excellent speech last week by Tom Hoenig, vice chairman at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., on the illusion of the Basel III rules in particular and the right way to think about capital more generally.
Third, while the Goldman Sachs analysts get some points for stating the obvious about Brown-Vitter — “In our view such a bill would incent the largest banks to break up” — they fail to explain why this would be a bad thing.
They do, however, have a line about how banks could only be broken up along existing divisional lines, though they fail to make clear why they believe this is the case or how it would be the best deal for shareholders. Also, once the too-big-to-fail subsidies fade, these new companies would probably be smaller than projected by Goldman Sachs. Less complex, easier to govern and more transparent to supervisors sounds pretty attractive, to officials and investors. (Any client can request a copy of Goldman’s May 2010 report, “U.S. Banks: Regulation.” See Page 32, where it explains how JPMorgan and Bank of America would be worth more if broken up. Richard Ramsden is the lead author of both this report and the one cited above.)
Fourth, the analysts express concern that these smaller companies will be less diversified and therefore more fragile than the megabanks. Delusions of diversification are precisely what brought us to the brink of catastrophe in September 2008. Have the smartest people on Wall Street really learned so little?
From a social perspective, we want a system in which some companies can fail while others prosper, more like the conditions under which hedge funds operate. For macroeconomic purposes, we want diversity within the financial sector, not diversification within Citigroup (which has come close to failing three times since 1982 precisely because of this misperception).
Fifth, on supposed progress to eliminate too big to fail, Goldman’s arguments fall under the heading of what Winston Churchill called terminological inexactitude. The Orderly Liquidation Authority under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law won’t work for complex cross-border banks, such as Goldman, because there is no cross-border resolution authority. Living wills have so far proved to be a joke, and annual stress tests show every sign of becoming a meaningless ritual that undermines serious supervision.
What will move forward the debate? Will it be another money-laundering scandal, another disaster in the European financial system, or further revelations about the London Whale and Libor?
Or will it be thoughtful people sitting down to evaluate the best in-depth arguments for both sides? If it’s Admati and Hellwig v. Goldman Sachs in the court of informed public opinion, reformers win in a landslide.
(Simon Johnson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management as well as a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is co-author of “White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You.” The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Simon Johnson at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at email@example.com.
Goldman Sachs Really Does Not Like to Be Sued!
You know the power that great wealth can bring when banks sue a judge who does not rule in their favor. The kind of justice system that banks would prefer is one that never finds them guilty of any wrongdoing and, in order to make sure that happens, the banks’ money is fully employed in paying many, many lawyers to do their bidding.
The listing alone of the corporate lawyers engaged in the filing takes four pages!
These banks have already been found civilly guilty of mortgage fraud elsewhere so no one will be surprised at finding many new instances of fraud committed by them.
To no one’s surprise, of course, Goldman Sachs is fully represented in this case.
Why Are Big Banks Going To War With A Federal Judge?
The accusation: shoddy underwriting of mortgage-backed securities.
The request: that banks buy back their ugly securities so shoddily underwritten.
The nation’s largest banks have devised a novel way to protect their interests and save themselves from hundreds of billions of dollars in legal exposure. They’re taking a judge to court.
Lawyers for 17 banks submitted an unusual filing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals this week (just listing all the corporate lawyers involved takes up the first four pages). The banks – including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley – stand accused of ripping off the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie and Freddie’s conservator, alleges that these banks improperly sold $200 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities without disclosing the shoddy underwriting of the underlying loans. FHFA argues the banks knew the loans in the securities were bad, yet sold them to Fannie and Freddie anyway, leading to massive losses and the need for a government bailout. So FHFA wants the banks to buy back the securities they improperly sold under false pretenses.
U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote took over the case in December, 2011, and quickly made a series of rulings in the case, first denying a motion by the banks to dismiss the lawsuit. The bank lawyers have become so dissatisfied with Cote’s rulings, in fact, that they have asked the Second Circuit to reverse them. The filing calls for a “writ of mandamus” that would throw out a series of rulings around discovery, which the bank lawyers claim “deprived Petitioners of their right to obtain evidence.” (You can chew for a moment on the idea that banks are being deprived of their rights.)
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS) lagged behind peers in a key measure of capital strength used by U.S. regulators to stress- test their resiliency in a severe recession.
The three firms submitted more-optimistic estimates of their capital strength and ability to avoid losses on trading and lending than Federal Reserve projections released yesterday for the 18 biggest U.S. banks. Of the three, the gap was widest for Goldman Sachs, which predicted that its Tier 1 common ratio may fall as low as 8.6 percent in a sharp economic downturn, compared with the central bank’s 5.8 percent estimate.
The disparities — including a gap of 1.3 percentage points for JPMorgan — raise the risk that some banks may have been too aggressive while seeking Fed approval to distribute capital to investors through dividends and share repurchases. The companies must maintain Tier 1 common ratios of at least 5 percent under their capital plans. The Fed is set to release the results of those requests next week.
“If you came in with rosier assumptions than the Fed’s own baseline, then you’re definitely at risk of failure” in the capital request, said Christopher Whalen, executive vice president at Carrington Investment Services LLC. “The Fed is going to push back on those banks.”
Spokesmen for JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, all based in New York, declined to comment.
Goldman Sachs dropped 2.3 percent to $152.98 in New York, the second-biggest decline in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. (BBSTI) The Bloomberg Banks Stress Test Index, which includes all 18 firms subject to yesterday’s test, declined 0.2 percent. JPMorgan fell 0.9 percent to $50.20 and Morgan Stanley dropped 0.8 percent to $23.03.
Auto lender Ally Financial Inc. (ALLY) had a capital ratio of 1.5 percent, the lowest of the firms tested. Detroit-based Ally, which is majority-owned by the U.S., disputed the Fed’s results, calling the analysis “inconsistent with historical experience” and “fundamentally flawed.” The company predicted its capital ratio would be 5.7 percent under the Fed’s scenario, according to a filing.
The results are a prelude to the Fed’s capital-plan review of the same banks scheduled for release on March 14. Yesterday’s results don’t forecast next week’s because the first test excludes management’s plans, a Fed official said yesterday on a conference call with reporters.
Banks have said they were coming into this year’s process more cautious even as investors of the six biggest U.S. lenders were anticipating capital payouts that could total $41 billion.
Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer Harvey Schwartz told analysts in January that the firm works closely with regulators to ensure it has a “conservative capital plan.”
JPMorgan scaled back its $15 billion share-buyback program by at least 20 percent and hopes to boost the bank’s 30-cent quarterly dividend, Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said this year. The bank’s buyback request was about half of last year’s program, the Financial Times reported today, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter. Joe Evangelisti, a company spokesman, declined to comment.
Morgan Stanley CFO Ruth Porat said in January that her firm only requested approval for buying the remaining 35 percent of its brokerage venture from Citigroup Inc.
Not asking for a lot won’t help lenders if the assumptions they use aren’t appropriately cautious, said Richard Bove, a bank analyst with Rafferty Capital Markets LLC.
“Even if they were conservative in their request, the capital plans will be turned down if the assumptions were too aggressive,” Bove said in a phone interview. “The Fed risks looking like it caved to pressure” if it doesn’t reject those plans, he said.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley both cited market risk rules under new international capital requirements, which increased risk-weighted assets, as a reason their capital ratios fell in the test.
“We were surprised that the brokers’ capital ratios came so close to the 5 percent minimum requirement, which could limit capital returns,” Brennan Hawken, an analyst at UBS AG, wrote in a research note.
Hawken had estimated that Goldman Sachs would request a $5 billion buyback. That amount would be larger than the firm’s buffer above the 5 percent minimum, he said. Morgan Stanley’s 5.7 percent ratio makes a capital return less likely in the second half of the year, Hawken said.
The banks were hurt by their trading risk, analysts said. The six biggest firms were projected to lose $97 billion on trading in nine quarters through 2014, compared with $116.5 billion in losses estimated in last year’s test, the central bank said. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan had the most such risk, with the Fed projecting losses of $24.9 billion and $23.5 billion, respectively. JPMorgan said its trading losses would be $17.5 billion.
“It’s a much more volatile business,” said Jennifer Thompson, an analyst at Portales Partners LLC. “In a stressed environment you will have potentially massive losses. The offset should be that they are getting better returns from those businesses. Theoretically, it should all equal out.”
Citigroup, the only U.S. bank among the six biggest to have its capital plan rejected last year, saw its Tier 1 common ratio fall to 8.3 percent under the central bank’s projections. The company sought permission to repurchase $1.2 billion of its shares without seeking a dividend increase, Citigroup said in a presentation after the Fed posted its report.
The planned buyback would “offset estimated dilution created by annual incentive compensation grants,” the New York- based lender said in the presentation.
Since the 2008-2009 financial crisis, U.S. regulators have tried to minimize the odds of another taxpayer rescue, compelling banks to retain some earnings and reinforce their buffers against possible losses. The Fed said the aggregate Tier 1 common capital ratio for the 18 banks would fall from an actual 11.1 percent in the third quarter of 2012 to 7.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014 under its scenario.
The Tier 1 common ratio measures a bank’s core equity, made up of common shares and retained earnings, divided by its total assets adjusted for risk using global banking guidelines.
JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank, projected that its key capital ratio wouldn’t fall below 7.6 percent, compared with 6.3 percent estimated by the central bank. The lender said pretax losses through 2014 would total $200 million while the Fed said they would be $32.3 billion. JPMorgan also was more optimistic than the Fed in estimating net revenue, loan losses and provisions it would need to cover those losses.
Morgan Stanley estimated its Tier 1 common ratio could fall to as low as 6.7 percent, 1 percentage point higher than the Fed’s projection. The bank’s estimate for net revenue in the stressed period was $5.1 billion higher than the Fed’s.
“Managements probably need to be a little bit more optimistic, the Fed’s a regulator,” Stifel Financial Corp. (SF) CEO Ronald Kruszewski told Matt Miller in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward” program. “That’s not unusual.”
The Fed’s minimum projected ratio for Bank of America Corp. (BAC), which didn’t request buybacks or a dividend increase last year, would drop to 6.8 percent in the most adverse scenario while Wells Fargo & Co.’s would be 7 percent.
Losses for the 18 firms, which represent more than 70 percent of the assets in the U.S. banking system, would total $462 billion over nine quarters, according to the Fed.
Under the Fed’s worst-case scenario — where U.S. gross domestic product doesn’t grow or contracts for six straight quarters, unemployment peaks at 12.1 percent and real disposable income falls for five consecutive periods — the 18 companies would lose $316.6 billion on soured loans, led by Bank of America. The Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm would lose $57.5 billion, followed by $54.6 billion for Citigroup and $54 billion each for Wells Fargo and JPMorgan.
Home loans were the largest source with $60.1 billion in projected losses on first mortgages and $37.2 billion on junior liens and home-equity loans. Bank of America would face $24.7 billion in losses, as San Francisco-based Wells Fargo would incur $23.7 billion, the Fed estimated.
The next-largest source of bad debt was credit cards, which the Fed estimated would cost banks $87.1 billion. Citigroup, the world’s biggest credit-card lender, led loss estimates with $23.3 billion. Capital One Financial Corp. (COF), which gets more than half its revenue from credit cards, would lose $16.4 billion. The lender’s own analysis estimated credit card losses at $13.5 billion.
“The stress analysis and underlying assumptions are informed by a number of factors, including our experience in the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession,” McLean, Virginia-based Capital One said in a presentation on its website.
As a share of a company’s loans, Capital One’s portfolio performed worst, with losses amounting to 13.2 percent of its holdings, according to the Fed. That compares with 6.9 percent for Bank of America and 7.7 percent for JPMorgan.
Dimon, 56, expressed confidence about the outcome of the stress test when he spoke to analysts and investors last week.
“Whatever happens, the company will be fine, as long as we can freely compete with everybody else in the world,” Dimon said Feb. 26 at the company’s investor day. “That, to me, is the most important thing of all.”
The following shows how the 18 biggest U.S. banks performed under the Fed’s preliminary stress test results, which didn’t take into consideration new capital proposals. They are ranked by their lowest projected minimum Tier 1 common ratio under the Fed’s severely adverse economic scenario:
Ally Financial Inc. 1.5 Morgan Stanley 5.7 Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) 5.8 JPMorgan Chase & Co. 6.3 Bank of America Corp. 6.8 Wells Fargo & Co. 7.0 SunTrust Banks Inc. 7.3 Capital One Financial Corp. 7.4 Regions Financial Corp. 7.5 KeyCorp 8.0 Citigroup Inc. 8.3 U.S. Bancorp 8.3 Fifth Third Bancorp 8.6 PNC Financial Services Group Inc. 8.7 BB&T Corp. 9.4 American Express Co. 11.1 State Street Corp. 12.8 Bank of New York Mellon Corp. 13.2
It will be interesting to see what comes of the insider trading prompted by the Heinz sale.
U.S. securities regulators filed suit on Friday against unknown traders in the options of ketchup maker H.J. Heinz Co, alleging they traded on inside information before the company announced a deal to be acquired for $23 billion by Warren Buffett‘s Berkshire Hathaway Inc and Brazil’s 3G Capital.
The suit, in federal court in Manhattan, cites “highly suspicious trading” in Heinz call options just prior to the Feb. 14 announcement of the deal. The regulator has frequently in past filed suit against unnamed individuals where it has evidence of wrongdoing, but is still trying to uncover the identities of those involved.
That trading, the suit said, caused the price of the particular call option they bought to soar 1,700 percent and generated unrealized profits of more than $1.7 million.
The regulator claims the traders are either in, or trading through accounts in, Zurich, Switzerland. The account had no history of trading in Heinz over the last six or so months.
It has also obtained an emergency order to freeze assets in the Swiss account linked to the trading. In the suit, the SEC refers to the account as the “GS Account” and in a statement Goldman Sachs Group Inc said it was cooperating with the regulator’s investigation.
“Irregular and highly suspicious options trading immediately in front of a merger or acquisition announcement is a serious red flag that traders may be improperly acting on confidential nonpublic information,” Daniel Hawke, chief of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement’s Market Abuse Unit said in a statement.
Representatives of Heinz and Berkshire Hathaway were unavailable for immediate comment. A 3G representative declined to comment. The founder of 3G, Jorge Paulo Lemann, is from Brazil, but has made a home in Switzerland since the 1990s. He has not been implicated in any wrongdoing related to the deal.
After the deal was revealed on Thursday, options market experts called Wednesday’s trading “suspicious and incredibly well-timed.”
The suit marks the second time in less than six months that the SEC has taken action over a 3G acquisition. In September 2012, the regulator got a court order to freeze the assets of a Wells Fargo & Co stockbroker who allegedly traded on inside information about 3G’s 2010 acquisition of Burger King.
In that case, the SEC said the stockbroker got the information from a client who had invested in one of 3G’s funds.
The suit also marks the second time in two years that controversy has erupted over a Berkshire acquisition target.
In March 2011, Berkshire struck a deal to buy chemical company Lubrizol for $9 billion. Less than three weeks later, Berkshire said Buffett lieutenant David Sokol was resigning and disclosed he had been buying Lubrizol shares while pushing Buffett to acquire the company. The SEC dropped a probe into Sokol’s trading earlier this year.
The suit is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Certain Unknown Traders in the Securities of H.J. Heinz Co, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-1080.