Tag Archives: Banking

Michael Lewis!

By James Kwak

On the title page of my copy of The Big Short, in black ink, it says:

“For James Kwak

With admiration”

And then a scrawl that I take to be Michael Lewis’s signature. (Christopher Lydon got the book signed for me, since Lewis was on his radio show a few days before I was.) It may be the only book I’ve ever bothered to get autographed.

So I was especially happy to read that Lewis also wants to break up the big banks (hat tip Ezra Klein):

“Along with the other too-big-to-fail firms, Goldman needs to be busted up into smaller pieces. The ultimate goal should be to create institutions so dull and easy to understand that, when a young man who works for one of them walks into a publisher’s office and offers to write up his experiences, the publisher looks at him blankly and asks, ‘Why would anyone want to read that?'”

When Simon and I made that the centerpiece of the last chapter of 13 Bankers, I thought our chances were slim. When we wrote, in the epilogue to the paperback edition, that a proposal to do exactly that had been voted down, 61 to 33, in the Senate, I thought they had changed from slim to none. It’s still a long shot, but the issue hasn’t died, and if anything is getting more attention now, what with people like George Osborne threatening to break up banks if they don’t reform themselves. Perhaps it isn’t impossible.

Thomas Hoenig Read All of Basel III . . .

By James Kwak

. . . and doesn’t like what he sees. In a post for the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, the former president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank echoes some of the issues raised by Andrew Haldane, which I discussed earlier. The core problem, for Hoenig, is that Basel III “promises precision far beyond what can be achieved for a system as complex and varied as that of U.S. banking.” Banks were able to arbitrage the risk-weighted capital requirements of Basel II? Well, we’ll close all of those loopholes, one by one. But this cannot be done, given the incentives and power imbalances at work: “Directors and managers . . . will delegate the task of compliance to technical experts, and the most brazen and connected banks with the smartest experts will game the system.”

Continue reading

Reports of Wall Street’s Death

By James Kwak

Gabriel Sherman wrote what I would call a hopeful article last week called “The End of Wall Street As They Knew It.” The basic premise is that the end of the credit bubble and the advent of Dodd-Frank mean lower profits, more boring businesses, and smaller bonuses on Wall Street—permanently (or at least for the foreseeable future). Sherman also says that the former masters of the universe are now engaged in “soul-searching”: “many acknowledge that the bubble­-bust-bubble seesaw of the past decades isn’t the natural order of capitalism—and that the compensation arrangements just may have been a bit out of whack.”

Call me a skeptic, but I’m not convinced. For one thing, there are few people quoted in the article who actually seem to be engaged in anything that might be called soul-searching (as opposed to complaining—like the now-clichéd banker who watches his spending carefully but has a girlfriend who likes to eat out). The story’s featured voices are ones that are not on Wall Street and have been critical of it for a long time, such as Paul Volcker and John Bogle. Another example of “self-criticism” comes from Bill Gross—but’s he’s on the buy side, not Wall Street.

Continue reading

The Fourteenth Banker

By James Kwak

I wanted to bring your attention to a new blog that could turn out to be very important. It’s called The Fourteenth Banker (here’s why) and it’s hosted and written by a current banker who wants to see real change in the industry. This is from the About page:

“Despite being with a big bank, I support reform legislation ending TBTF, separation of Commercial and Investment banking, an independent consumer protection agency and other meaningful reforms.    Why?    I have seen first hand the perversions that happen because of some who believe that the an institution exists for them and the stockholders primarily.    Countless others have been hypnotized by this illusion as well.       Free market idealism is conveniently permissive of unbridled self interest.  I believe in the free market.   In fact, this blog is a free market of ideas and is meant to lead to a free market in banking where institutions self police as a matter of competitiveness.    I have hopes of a free market where being in community in a responsible and consistent way is the path to prosperity, a free market where we recognize that if we take care of the community, the community will take care of us.    It takes a sort of faith.    Or does it?     Is not all successful business enterprise based on providing more value than is consumed?

“That is why we are here.   I invite other bankers to engage in discussion about issues and excesses in our industry and possible solutions.”

Continue reading

“Break Up the Banks” – in the National Review

By James Kwak

“Big banks are bad for free markets,” economist Arnold Kling (who usually blogs at EconLog) begins in the conservative flagship National Review, and it only gets better from there. “There is a free-market case for breaking up large financial institutions: that our big banks are the product, not of economics, but of politics.”

Like other conservative economists, Kling uses Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as an example of financial institutions that grew too large through a combination of lobbying expertise and government guarantees . . . and frankly I agree with him. But he is equally unsparing of other large banks that were supposedly “pure” private actors but turned out to have their own government guarantees.

Continue reading

Banks Paying Customers to Take Overdraft Protection

By James Kwak

I saw a bank ad in the subway yesterday. Basically, it said:

  1. If you set up direct deposit the bank will give you $100.
  2. If you set up overdraft protection the bank will give you $25.
  3. If you activate online bill pay the bank will give you $25.

1 makes sense because (a) it gives the bank more cheap deposits, which are its raw material and (b) it increases your switching costs. 3 makes sense because it increases your switching costs; it may also cause you to give the bank more cheap deposits, since you need money in the account to cover your bills.

2 makes sense because . . . the bank expects to get more than $25 in fees out of the average customer. A single overdraft fee typically costs more than $25. Now people will be making an explicit decision: “I want the $25 now because I don’t think I’ll ever pay an overdraft fee.” (To be fair, they might be thinking, “I already value overdraft protection at $35 per occurrence, so the $25 is just a bonus.” But I doubt many people think overdraft protection is worth $35 per transaction when the typical transaction is a lot less than $35.

There’s nothing illegal about this, and arguably it’s a smart business decision. It just makes things perfectly clear: the banks want those fees so much they are willing to pay you for them.

Banking Industry: Sicker, More Concentrated

By James Kwak

The rapid bounce-back of some of the big banks (notably Goldman and JPMorgan) has overshadowed (at least on the front pages of major newspapers) the continued plight of the banking sector as a whole. Calculated Risk highlights the FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile, which lists 702 problem banks with over $400 billion in assets — the highest year-end figures on both metrics since 1992, as the savings and loan crisis was tailing off.

Continue reading