Category Archives: Regulations and regulators

A New “Whocoulddanode” Defense, This Time of Coddling Banksters in the Crisis

I hate shooting the messenger even when he lets us know that he is a tad invested in the information he is conveying, but sometimes it is warranted. Floyd Norris now tells us that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to have been so generous to the banks during the crisis. He cites the usual reasons: the recovery is shallow, the officialdom missed the opportunity created by the crisis to restructure the financial system, sparing bondholders created moral hazard, and we are now stuck with banks in the driver’s seat. His lament, as the headline accurately summarizes, is “Crisis Is Over, But Where’s The Fix?”

The problem is that his account is larded with a rationalization of the decisions made at the time to treat major financial firms with soft gloves:

At the time, rescuing seemed more important than reforming. The world economy was breaking down because of a lack of financing. Trade flows collapsed, and companies and individuals stopped spending. It seemed clear that halting the slide was critical…

A surprising citadel of that second-guessing is at the International Monetary Fund, where researchers this week concluded that the rescues “only treated the symptoms of the global financial meltdown.”

“Second guessing” is simply misleading.

BofA “Bad Bank” for Legacy Assets: Will This Eventually Be a First Use of Dodd Frank Resolution Powers?

In a move not noticed much three weeks ago, Bank of America announced that it was segregating its crappy mortgages into a “bad bank”. It got more attention today by virtue of being discussed long form in an investor conference call (see related stories at Bloomberg and Housing Wire).

The use of a “bad bank” is strongly associatied with failed institutions. Some of the big Texas banks that went bust in the 1980s (Texas Commerce Bank and First Interstate) used “good bank/bad bank” structures to hive off the dud assets to investors at the best attainable price, and preserve the value of the performing assets. The Resolution Trust Corporation, the workout vehicle in the savings and loan crisis, was effectively a really big bad bank. The FDIC is (and I presume was) able to sell branches and deposits pretty readily; the remaining bad loans and unsellable branch operations reached such a level that the FDIC was forced to go hat in hand to Congress and get funding while it worked out the dreck. A similar structure was used in in the wake of the banking crisis in Sweden in the early 1990s.

I am told by mortgage maven Rosner and others that this move is not meant as a legal separation, but a mere financial reporting measure, so that BofA can declare, “See, we do have this toxic waste over here, but we are chipping away at it and we’ll have that resolved in some not infinite time frame” (the current talk is 36 months) “and look at how the rest of the bank looks pretty good!.”

So I may be accused of being cynical, but I read more into it than that.

Tom Adams: Fraudclosure Settlement Largely Repeats 2003 FTC Servicing Settlement

By Tom Adams, an attorney and former monoline executive

Back in 2003, Fairbanks Capital billed itself as the largest servicer of subprime mortgages. It was also a stand alone servicer, in that it was not in the business of lending.

In a high profile case within the mortgage industry, the Federal Trade Commission brought an action against Fairbanks for violating the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) . Fairbanks was accused of a host of improper servicing activities that will sound remarkably familiar to anyone following the foreclosure and servicing issues in today’s mortgage markets.

Banks Beef About Fraudclosure Settlement As Stocks Rise on the News

I’ve pointed out how effective a non-negotiable posture can be, at least until the other side pulls out its ammo or threatens to walk from the deal. Most people in negotiations go on the assumption that the other side is reasonable or at least sincere (even if sincerely deluded) and will offer concessions on the assumption the other side will reciprocate.

The poster child of the usual outcome of offering concessions to a party who is non-negotiable is can be summarized in one word, as in “appeasement” circa 1939. And the ridiculous part is that the banks are being allowed to cop a ‘tude when the other side holds all the cards.

Let’s get this straight: this “settlement” should not be a negotiation. Virtually all the items in the 27 page outline of mortgage settlement terms that was leaked yesterday simply restates existing law or existing contractual obligations. If the officialdom wants to rely on mechanisms beyond the courts (since some judges are more pro-bank than others, which can produce the dreaded disease of “uncertainty”), the same results could be achieve by rulemaking without regulators or state attorneys general providing any releases from legal liability to the banks.

As banking/mortgage expert Josh Rosner said in an e-mail to clients:

GSE 2.0 Scare Tactics: False Claim That No Government Guarantee = No Thirty-Year Mortgage

The propaganda strategy for selling the public on the creation of supposedly new improved GSEs is becoming more apparent. Recall that we had an initial skirmish a month ago, when the Center for American Progress published a plan to reform Fannie/Freddie and the housing finance system. It would create an FDIC-like insurance fund to stand behind private Fannie/Freddie like entities that will offer reinsurance with an explicit Federal guarantee on mortgage-backed securities. These new firms can also be controlled by banks.

This plan, which was very similar to ones presented by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Federal Reserve and the New York Fed, t was clearly an Administration trial balloon; the CAP is the mainstream Democrat think-tank, with close ties to Team Obama. But after the CAP proposal got some resistance, the Treasury’s report, which came later in the month, went the route of presenting three alternatives rather than a specific plan. But we argued at the time that this seeming change was merely a tactical move, to present the Administration as fair brokers in a politically fraught process, and that it still favored what we called the GSE 2.0 plan.

We think the idea of reconstituting the GSEs in somewhat improved form a terrible idea because it preserves the bad incentives of a public/private system and launders housing market subsidies in an inefficient and unaccountable way through the banking industry.

More Project Merlin Infighting Back Story, and the Collision to Come

By Richard Smith Well, if you are inclined to believe them (confirmation bias alert) the latest London rumours about the infighting that accompanied Project Merlin (h/t @creditplumber) certainly dispel any doubts about the Treasury’s bank-favouring attempt to meddle with the Independent Banking Commission: The Government offered to emasculate the Independent Commission on Banking as it […]

A Straightforward Criminal Case Against Wall Street CEOs and Senior Executives

Various people who ought to know better, such as the New York Times’ Joe Nocera, haven taken to playing up the party line of the banking industry and I am told, the SEC, that we should resign ourselves to letting senior financial services industry members get away with having looted their firms and leaving the rest of us with a very large bill.

It is one thing to point out a sorry reality, that the rich and powerful often get away with abuses while ordinary citizens seldom do. It’s quite another to present it as inevitable. It would be far more productive to isolate what are the key failings in our legal, prosecutorial, and regulatory regime are and demand changes.

The fact that financial fraud cases are often difficult does not mean they are unwinnable. And a prosecutor does not need to prevail in all, or even most, to serve as an effective cop on the beat.

Contrary to prevailing propaganda, there is a fairly straightforward case that could be launched against the CEOs and CFOs of pretty much every US bank with major trading operations.

Satyajit Das: Potemkin Villages – The Truth about Emerging Markets

By Satyajit Das, the author of “Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives”

Martin Gilman (2010) No Precedent, No Plan: Inside Russia’ 1998 Default; MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Victor C. Shih (2008) Factions and Finance in China; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Carl E Walter and Fraser J. T. Howie (2010) Red Capitalism: The Fragile Financial Foundation of China’s Extraordinary Rise; John Wiley, Singapore

According to myth, Russian minister Grigory Potyomkin ordered the erection of fake settlements, consisting of hollow facades of villages along the Dnieper River, to impress Empress Catherine II, about the value of her new conquests during her visit to Crimea in 1787. More than two centuries later, emerging market nations have borrowed the strategy. These three books provide insights into the Potemkin-village-like structure of emerging economies.

Megan McArdle Uses Straw Men to Argue Against Principal Mods

Megan McArdle has a post up discussing why she thinks the benefits of principal mods would be “at best small and mixed”.

The problem with her lengthy discussion is that it is rife with straw men.

Before we get to the nitty gritty, I want address two bits of framing at the top which I found troubling. The first was the title, “Principal Write-Downs Still Popular With Wonks”. The “still” suggests that wonks like it even though some, presumably most, yet to be named others don’t. And singling out “wonks” further implies that (aside from homeowners) they may be its only fans.

That is very misleading. Who is in favor of mods? The only people who under normal circumstances ought to have a vote on this matter, namely, the borrowers and the lenders. First mortgage lenders overwhelmingly favor mods to borrowers with who still have a viable income. Why? Do the math:

Ian Fraser: Lloyds – Enron Redux?

By Ian Fraser, a financial journalist who blogs at his web site and at qfinance.

Call me naïve but, back in 2002, I genuinely believed that Enron-esque accounting would become a thing of the past. Having turned “aggressive” accounting and (off) balance-sheet manipulation into an art form, the Texas-based energy giant got caught with its pants down — and was forced into bankruptcy. The auditors who cooked the books may have evaded justice, but their firm did implode.

Sadly however the lessons were not learnt. As we saw with Lehman Brother’s abuse of Repo 105, accounting ruses bearing uncanny resemblance to those favoured by the ex-Enron CEO Andrew Fastow were widely used across the financial sector during the “age of moderation” — and remain so today.

In the City of London, Enron-style accounting remains prevalent.

Dylan Ratigan: Will Washington wake up to Wall Street greed?

It’s good to see more MSM outlets taking up the “why the lack of cases against the big Wall Street firms” theme. Perhaps my cynicism is showing, but Phil Angelides seems to be talking a tougher line than he did when the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report was released. Is this simply his response to […]

Speculators Not Wagering Much Against Periphery Country Eurobonds

Given how many commentators believe that Greece is destined to default on its bonds (particularly since they are subordinate to any new money from the IMF and EU), you’d think they’d be putting their money where their mouth is.

But the old saw in the US is “don’t fight the Fed”. And the same logic appears to apply with the ECB. John Dizard of the Financial Times reports that perilous little in the way of CDS contracts is being written on everyone’s favorite sovereign default candidate (although the leader of Fine Gael, which will be leading the new coalition in Ireland, fired a shot of sorts across the bow of the eurozone officialdom).

Guest Post: The 10 Most Systemically Risky Financial Firms in the US

Yves here. As we noted in January,

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is trying to duck the assignment given the Financial Stability Oversight Council under the Dodd Frank legislation, namely, that of identifying “systemically important” financial institutions….The Treasury devised a list of banks it subjected to stress tests; conceptually, how is this process any different?

I’m pleased to see four professors from New York University’s Stern School take up this task. And they end their analysis with a rebuke:

This is the easy part for the Financial Security Oversight Council. The tough part is to then design efficient regulation that discourages the build up of excessive risk.

By Viral Acharya, Thomas F. Cooley, Robert Engle, and Matthew Richardson. Cross posted from VoxEU.

As part of the US policy response to the global crisis, the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act calls for regulators to identify systemically risky financial firms – the sort that took the US financial crisis global. But how to identify these firms remains unclear. Some claim the task is impossible. This column begs to differ and names the 10 most systemically risky financial firms in the US.