Posts Tagged ‘Morgan Stanley’

Volcker Rule Is Giving Big Banks Headaches

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

Volcker Rule implementation is scaring the big banks.  Curiosity is growing about which Wall Street banks will be the first to get out of proprietary trading or the private equity business as they restructure to come into compliance with new financial regulatory reform legislation. The Volcker Rule - named for former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker - limits banks from these practices and sets new levels on the size of private equity or hedge fund investments.  In other words, the banks are not allowed to hold more than three percent of their Tier 1 capital - a measure of their financial strength — in private equity or hedge fund investments.

Bank of America is almost in compliance, though Goldman Sachs must act more aggressively and is reported to be weighing several options to comply with the increased regulation.  The good news for the Wall Street banks is that they have several years in which they can reduce their holdings.  “They have time to adjust,” said Mark Nuccio, partner at Boston-based Ropes & Gray.  “I don’t think there’s any intention on behalf of the regulators to create economic dislocation at financial institutions.”

The new rules are driving certain banks to rethink their business, while others see the new law as a welcome excuse to distance themselves from unwanted hedge or private-equity funds.  “If you were leaning toward a strategic change anyway then now is a good time to re-evaluate the business because you have a regulator saying you shouldn’t be in this business anyway,” said Thomas Whelan, chief executive of Greenwich Alternative Investments.  This is particularly true for banks that quickly acquired hedge fund operations during the boom years.  At that time, having a hedge fund was essential to the strategic mix.  Since 2008, however, when hedge funds posted their worst-ever returns and clients tried to cash in assets, the math changed for many banks.

Fed Governor: U.S. Faces “Significant Economic Challenges”

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

With unemployment “stubbornly” high and government deficits rising, Fed warns of upcoming dangers.  The United States still faces “significant economic challenges”, with unemployment at “stubbornly” high levels and businesses that are reluctant to spend as government deficits rise.  This is the opinion of Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh, who said “Taking account of the broad range of economic and financial conditions, there is no wonder that the electorate in the United States and abroad is unnerved.”  Nevertheless, Warsh feels “much better about the state of the real economy” than he did at this time last year.

Speaking at a symposium hosted by the Shadow Open Market Committee, Warsh, a former Morgan Stanley banker, noted that “Unemployment remains high and stubbornly so.”  Fed policymakers “still have tough times ahead” as they work to prove that their long-term goals are not being compromised.  The Senate Banking committee, under the leadership of its Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT), has proposed a financial rules overhaul that would result in the most significant restructuring of Wall Street oversight since the 1930s.  The Senate bill would limit the Fed to supervising bank holding companies with assets in excess of $50 billion.  Smaller and mid-sized banks would be regulated by other agencies.

According to Warsh, the Fed must act with “consistency” to protect its credibility.  “The Federal Reserve must do its utmost to stay foursquare within its role as liquidity provider,” Warsh said.  “The Fed, as first responder, must strongly resist the temptation to be the ultimate rescuer.”  Warsh believes that even though securitization has become a dirty word, the financial vehicle ultimately will return to the market.

Bank of America Throws a Lifeline to Underwater Homeowners

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

BofA is writing down mortgage principal for thousands of underwater homeowners.  Bank of America (BofA) is taking steps to write down mortgage principal owed by thousands of underwater homeowners in what has been termed “the mortgage industry’s boldest move yet” to resolve the nation’s foreclosure problem.  Bank of America can well afford the initiative.

According to Betsy Graseck, a Morgan Stanley analyst, the ultimate cost of principal reductions is “immaterial” because the majority of the $10 billion pool of loans that are eligible for the write-downs are no longer carried on Bank of America’s balance sheet.  BofA holds just $1.5 to $2 billion of eligible loans and has already reserved against expected losses on these mortgages.  The loans are among the most exotic and risky subprime products that were available during the housing boom.  One is the Option ARM, which originated with an extremely low interest rate and resets at a significantly higher level after a few years.  The rest of the eligible loans - inherited by BofA through its 2007 acquisition of Countrywide Financial - are already securitized and investor owned.

Although the move is giving BofA valuable free publicity, it results from a settlement between the attorney generals of several states and the bank.  Even though some investors complained it wasn’t fair for BofA to agree to the modifications since they were not assuming the majority of the losses, the AGs refused to give up.  BofA is trying to placate the investors by assuring that the modification amounts will be reduced if house prices recover in the next few years.  Additionally, the BofA program is being called a archetype for other lenders.

Kenneth Feinberg Widens Review of Rescued Bank Compensation

Thursday, April 1st, 2010

The nation’s pay czar is widening his review of how much money hundreds of banks paid their top executives during Pay czar is asking for details on compensation at U.S. banks that took TARP money.  the 2008 financial crisis. Kenneth R. Feinberg, officially the Special Master for Executive Compensation, is asking for details on compensation at 419 banks that were bailed out by the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  Because Feinberg’s authority over compensation only started on February 17, 2009 - when President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill into law and gave Treasury the ability to shape compensation at bailed-out companies - he can do nothing about bonuses paid at the end of 2008.

The standards for deciding that compensation is excessive must be “contrary to the public interest.”  Feinberg’s “look back letter” gives the firms 30 days to provide the information requested.  The compensation review applies only to managers who earned upwards of $500,000 during the four-month period that is under assessment.  Scott Talbott, senior vice president of the Financial Services Roundtable, said the big banks “will work with Mr. Feinberg to demonstrate that the industry has eliminated pay practices that encouraged excessive risk-taking.”

Last fall, Feinberg cut executive paychecks by approximately 50 percent for the seven biggest bailout recipients.  Of those, Citigroup and Bank of America have since repaid the government.  Feinberg was able to pressure AIG employees to return a percentage of their compensation.  James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, said, “On one hand, some of these banks were effectively forced to take TARP money.  But you could also argue that the executives of surviving banks should not be compensated highly because it wasn’t really their particular skill, it was their luck that they were in an institution that survived when the government bailed out the financial system.”

The Federal Government Takes First Steps to Bail Out Banks

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

The Treasury Department is spending the first $250 billion of the $700 billion rescue bill that Congress recently approved in an attempt to defuse the financial crisis that has dominated the headlines for weeks.  According to a recent article on GlobeSt.com, the move - which partially nationalizes the banking system - is seen by some as conflicting with the free-market principles that typically have characterized the American economy. To shore up the United States banking system, the Treasury Department is partially nationalizing nine banks by using $125 billion to purchase minority stakes in major financial institutions.  Although the banks haven’t been named, they are believed to include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Bank of New York Mellon Corporation.  The Treasury Department is also expected to make the remaining $125 billion available to banks and thrifts across the country to purchase their preferred shares.

According to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, “Today’s actions are not what we ever wanted to do, but are what we must do to restore confidence to our financial system.  The needs of the economy require that our financial institutions not take this new capital to hoard it, but to deploy it.”  Just weeks before the presidential election, outgoing President George W. Bush sees the move as a short-term measure.  “The government’s role will be limited and temporary.  These measures are not intended to take over the free market, but to preserve it,” Bush said.

The question now is whether the banks will use the capital as the government intends - lend it to businesses and consumers again - or will they use it to sweeten their own balance sheets?  The government, no doubt, intends to exert significant pressure on the institutions to loosen credit so that people can start buying big-ticket items like houses and cars again.