Posts Tagged ‘financial regulation’

Federal Reserve Asks for Comments Before Implementing the Volcker Rule

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Federal regulators have requested public comment on the Volcker Rule – the Dodd-Frank Act restrictions that would ban American banks from making short-term trades of financial instruments for their own accounts and prevent them from owning or sponsoring hedge funds and private-equity funds.  The Volcker rule, released by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is intended to head off the risk-taking that caused the 2008 financial crisis.  The rule, which is little changed from drafts that have been leaked recently, would ban banks from taking positions held for 60 days or less, exempt certain market-making activities, change the way traders involved in market-making are compensated and assure that senior bank executives are responsible for compliance.

Analysts say the proposed rule could slash revenue and cut market liquidity in the name of limiting risk.  Banks such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., have already been winding down their proprietary trading desks in anticipation of the Volcker Rule kicking in.  Banks’ fixed-income desks could see their revenues decline as much as 25 percent under provisions included in a draft, brokerage analyst Brad Hintz said.  Moody’s Investors Service said the rule would be “credit negative” for bondholders of Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley, “all of which have substantial market-making operations.”  The rule, named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, was included in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act with the intention of reining in risky trading by firms whose customer deposits are insured by the federal government.

John Walsh, a FDIC board member and head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said that he was “delighted” that regulators had reached an agreement on the proposed rule, “given the controversy that has surrounded this provision — how it addressed root causes of the financial crisis.”  “I expect the agencies will move in a careful and deliberative manner in the development of this important rule, and I look forward to the extensive public comments that I’m sure will follow,” Martin J. Gruenberg, the FDIC’s acting chairman, said.  The rule will be open for public comment until January.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street opposes the rule, saying it will cut profits and limit liquidity at a difficult time for the banking industry.  Moody’s echoed those concerns, saying the current version of the Volcker rule would “diminish the flexibility and profitability of banks’ valuable market-making operations and place them at a competitive disadvantage to firms not constrained by the rule.”  Some Democratic lawmakers and consumer advocates are pushing to close loopholes in the rules, especially the broad exemption for hedging.  Supporters of the Volcker rule take issue with a plan to excuse hedging tied to “anticipatory” risk, rather than clear-and-present problems.  “Unfortunately, this initial proposal does not deliver on the promise of the Volcker Rule or the requirements of the statute,” said Marcus Stanley, policy director of Americans for Financial Reform, an advocacy group.  Additionally, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association raised concerns about whether the exemption for trades intended to make markets for customers is too narrow.

According to Moody’s, the large financial firms all have “substantial market-making operations,” which the Volcker Rule will target.  The regulations also will recreate compensation guidelines so pay doesn’t encourage big risk-taking.  Derivatives lawyer Sherri Venokur said restrictions on compensation are “intended to create a sea change in the mindsets of those who create the culture of our banking institutions — to value ‘safety and soundness’ as well as profitability.”

Equity analysts at Bernstein say that the Volcker Rule — if implemented in its current form – will slash Wall Street brokers’ revenues by 25 percent, and cut pre-tax margin of their fixed income trading businesses by 33 percent.  According to Bernstein, the Volcker Rule’s potential limitations are a surprise because it appears to prohibit flow trading in “nonexempt portions” of the bond-trading business.  Bernstein says inventory levels – and, in all probability, risk taking – must be based on client demands and not on “expectation of future price appreciation.”

A Bloomberg.com editorial offers support to the Volcker Rule, while admitting it won’t be perfect.  According to the editorial, “This week, the first of several regulatory agencies will consider a measure aimed at ending the practice.  Known as the Volcker rule, after Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, the measure would curb federally insured banks’ ability to make speculative bets on securities, derivatives or other financial instruments for their own profit — the kind of ‘proprietary’ trading that can lead to catastrophic losses.  Whatever form it takes will be far from perfect.  It will also be better than the status quo.  The bank bailouts of 2008, and the public outrage over traders’ and executives’ bonuses, laid bare a fundamental problem in big institutions such as Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

“They attempt to combine two very different kinds of financial professionals: those who process payments, collect peoples’ deposits and make loans, and those who specialize in making big, risky bets with other peoples’ money.  When these big banks run into trouble, government officials face a dilemma. They want — and in some ways are obligated — to save the part of the bank that does the processing and lending, because those elements are crucial to the normal functioning of the economy.  But in doing so, they also end up bailing out the gamblers, a necessity that erodes public support for bailouts and stirs enmity for banks.  Separating the bankers from the gamblers is no easy task. Commercial banks’ explicit federal backing — including deposit insurance and access to emergency funds from the Federal Reserve — is attractive to proprietary traders, who can use a commercial bank’s access to cheap money to boost profits.  Bank executives like to employ traders because they generate juicy returns in good times that drive up the share price and justify large bonuses. In effect, both traders and managers are reaping the benefits of a government subsidy on financial speculation.  The Volcker rule will not — and probably cannot — fully dissolve the union of bankers and gamblers.”

How Canada Avoided a Housing Bust

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

Canada avoided the collapse in housing prices that devastated American homeowners and the U.S. economy, thanks to tighter financial regulations, the lack of subprime lending and securitized mortgages. Foreclosures are rare.  As a result, Canadian real estate steadily appreciated while property values in Florida, Arizona and other hard-hit American markets tanked.

According to James MacGee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, The United States’ and Canada’s “Monetary policy was very similar in both countries from 2000 to 2008, but housing prices rose much faster in the U.S. than in Canada. This suggests that some other factor both drove the more rapid appreciation in U.S. prices and set the stage for the housing bust.

And what is that other factor?  Canadians are a bit plodding: Perhaps the simplest story is that Canada was ‘lucky’ to be a late adopter of U.S. innovations rather than an innovator in mortgage finance.  In addition, bank capital regulation in Canada treats off-balance sheet vehicles more strictly than the U.S., and the stricter treatment reduces the incentive for Canadian banks to move mortgage loans to off-balance sheet vehicles.”

Relaxed lending standards in the United States, highlighted by the rise in subprime lending, played a vital role in creating the housing bubble. This weakening of standards led to an increase in housing demand.  Mortgages were frequently given to people who were likely to have trouble making payments.  Extending credit to risky borrowers helped fuel the housing boom and set the stage for the resulting surge in defaults and foreclosures, which were a big factor in the housing bust.  Additionally, according to the Case-Shiller Index, house prices in the United States from 2000 through 2006 appreciated at a rate nearly double that of Canadian residential real estate.  In contrast with the United States, Canadian house prices continued to appreciate until late 2008, and are now nearly 80 percent higher in value than in 2000.

MacGee said “The potential risks of increased household mortgage debt depend critically upon its distribution across borrowers. To see how the distribution of mortgage debt has changed, we examined the distribution of the ratio of the outstanding loan to house value (the LTV) of borrowers.  A high LTV implies that a small decline in the house price would leave the owner with negative equity.  Negative equity is problematic as it removes the option for a homeowner who is unable to meet their mortgage payments to sell their home to repay the mortgage.”

Canadian home prices are leveling off in 2011, though, with an overall decline of 0.9 percent anticipated for the year.  A home worth $100,000 will likely decline by $900 in 2011.  In some areas, home prices might actually increase while other areas might see prices fall two or three times as much. The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) expects a 7.3 percent decline in home sales in 2011.

“Canadians are debt-averse,” said Kevin Fritz, a Canadian who recently purchased a home and made a 40 percent downpayment. This is an attitude that is partly cultural and partly shaped by banking practices and regulations designed to keep people out of homes unless they can clearly afford them.  “People here don’t leverage.”

“It is a regulatory structure in Canada that created the Canadian mortgage system, and it was a regulatory and political structure in the U.S. that created the U.S. mortgage system,” said Ed Clark, chief executive of TD Bank.  “The irony is…that one of the primal causes of the crisis was the U.S. mortgage system.”

In an interesting aside, more Canadians are finding housing bargains in Florida, and today account for eight percent of residential sales in the state.  Doug Flood, who relocated to the Sunshine State from Toronto in 2008, now runs a business that helps his fellow Canadians find the home they want.  “There’s clearly a perfect storm.  If you’re Canadian, you’ve got very low interest rates at home if you want to borrow against your house.  You’ve got a foreign exchange par, dollar-for-dollar.  And prices down here that are 40 to 50 percent lower than what they were five years ago.”

To listen to our interview with the Brookings Institution about financial regulations, click here.

Anthony Downs On Financial Reform

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Anthony Downs discusses the ins and outs of financial reform.  The nation’s financial system needs significantly more regulation than exists now.  The lack of tough regulatory powers strongly impacted the recent financial crash and the Great Recession that ensued.  The good news is that the Obama administration is moving firmly in this direction with financial reform legislation a critical item on its agenda.  This is the opinion of Anthony Downs,  a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution and former President of the Real Estate Research Corporation.  In a recent interview for the Alter NOW Podcasts, Downs said that between 1980 and 2007, the value of international capital markets – including bank deposits, assets, equities, public and private debt – quadrupled relative to the world’s GDP, lifting millions of people out of poverty.  Although unprecedented, this growth relied heavily on borrowed money to finance higher living standards and highly leveraged loans with limited reserves backing them.  In the end, the growth was unable to be sustained.

The financial reform legislation currently undergoing reconciliation by a Senate-House conference committee is not a reinstatement of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act – which separated investment and commercial banking — because banks will still be allowed to deal with securities.  Under the new law, banks will have to register derivatives with some type of formal exchange and maintain records on who is borrowing money and under what terms.  This marks a significant change from before the Great Recession, when derivatives were traded with virtually no oversight.

Downs believes that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan contributed to the financial crisis in two ways.  In 2001, when Greenspan was informed that there was fraud in the subprime housing market and that he should do something about it, he refused to take action because he didn’t believe in regulation.  According to Downs, “that was a terrible mistake and meant that all the horrible loans made in the subprime market could continue unchecked.”  Greenspan’s second error was to maintain low interest rates for as long as he did at a time when an enormous amount of capital was coming into the United States economy from overseas.  Because investors were avoiding the stock market, they put their money into real estate.  That drove the price of properties sky high and destroyed the concept of intelligent underwriting and evaluating the risk before approving the loan.

 
icon for podpress  Anthony Downs On Financial Reform: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Government Expansion Will Fuel 2010 Office Absorption

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

Federal government will need 4,000,000 SF of office space in 2010.  The federal government will lead the office market recovery, especially in Washington, D.C. According to Jones Lang LaSalle’s 2010 U.S. Federal Government Perspective, the federal government will need at least 4,000,000 SF of new space nationally this year, though the lion’s share will be in the Washington, D.C. market.

The need will be driven primarily by adding staff related to increased financial regulation and restructuring, which are receiving funding to carry out new or expanded mandates.  “This is a significant concentration of absorption given net private and public demand across the United States combined does not equal 5,000,000 SF” according to the report.

Jones Lang LaSalle predicts that federal demand will slow after the November 2 mid-term elections.  “Government leasing typically leads the private sector by six to 12 months, so this robust federal activity stands to help stabilize certain market segments – particularly the D.C. metro market,” said Joe Brennan, director of Jones Lang LaSalle’s government investor services team.  “The force of the federal government’s real estate need will continue and intensify over the next 12 months as the Obama administration shifts from the planning stages to implementation and execution of a broad spectrum of programs and initiatives.”

Volcker Rule Seeks to Regulate Financial Markets

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

President Obama’s proposed Volcker Rule financial regulation bill faces an uncertain future on Capitol Hill.  A draft of President Barack Obama’s financial reform legislation has been sent to Congress.  Dubbed the Volcker Rule in honor of the former Federal Reserve chairman’s  aggressive pursuit of these regulations, the five-page proposal will ban proprietary trading and mergers that give banks more than a 10 percent market share as measured by liabilities that are not insured deposits.  Passage of the bill would bar banks from owning or investing in private equity firms and hedge funds.

The rule, designed to reduce the possibility of another financial crisis, exempts mergers that exceed the market-share limit in instances where a firm takes over a failing bank so long as regulators approve.  Also exempted are trading in Treasury and agency securities, including debt issued by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The legislation, which has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, would reduce banks’ ability to take risks.  It is a reaction to the more than $1.7 trillion in writedowns and credit losses that followed the subprime mortgage meltdown in late 2007.  Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, prefers a five-year transition period rather than the two years suggested in the president’s proposal.

Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York says the exemptions may help avoid market disruptions that could impact small investors.  “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” the individual investor is “going to be the one who suffers.”