Felix Salmon points us to Arianna Huffington’s campaign to get people to move money out of the big four banks: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. (Over at Wells, which was “just” a $600 billion bank until it bought Wachovia, they must be wondering if it was worth the headache.) She suggests community savings banks here; Salmon suggests credit unions here; Uncle Billy also suggests credit unions here.
Posted in Commentary
Via Yves Smith, John Hempton analyzes the quarterly results of Bank of America (so-so) and Fannie Mae (terrible). The underlying issue is that bank quarter-to-quarter results are largely driven by the amount of provisions they take against future loan losses. You can think of this as a very rough approximation to marking-to-market — instead of waiting for the loans to default, you estimate how many loans will default in the future (that estimate should change as the economic situation changes) and put that amount of money into reserves. Then when the defaults actually happen, you take the money out of reserves.
Hempton argues that Bank of America and Fannie Mae are estimating extremely different future loan losses, and those differences cannot be attributed to differences in their current performance (the rate at which loans are defaulting now). If I wanted to be provocative I would only show you this quote:
“If Bank of America were to provide at the same rate its quarterly losses would be 50-80 billion and it would be completely bereft of capital – it would be totally cactus. It would be – like Fannie Mae – a zombie government property.” [emphasis in original]
(“Totally cactus” — I like that.)
One of the Free Exchange bloggers (some people know who is who by name, but I don’t — if anyone wants to enlighten me, I’m listening) admits choosing his bank because it was big, and staying there because it is big. He also links to James Surowiecki, who asks in the “notes” to his latest column,
“[W]hy, given the broader backlash against the big banks and the less-than-inspiring performance they’ve turned in over the last couple of years, are people still sticking with them? What makes this even more curious is that the big banks, which have historically offered their customers worse deals than smaller banks, have not changed their ways: they pay less for deposits, charge more for loans, make billions from overdraft fees, and have jacked up credit-card rates.”
Last week, Charles Calomiris wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that big banks are better for various reasons. Simon wrote last week saying that Calomiris underestimated the political dimension, and that his proposed solution — a cross-border resolution mechanism for large institutions — is the policy equivalent of assuming a can opener.
I wanted to look at Calomiris’s specific claims. I think I’ve already dealt with the myth that banks “need to be large to operate on a global scale—and they need to do so because their clients are large and operate globally.” Calomiris also argues that there are economies of scope (it’s better to be big because you can play in multiple businesses). Here’s his evidence:
“True, some empirical studies in the field of finance have failed to find big gains from mergers. But those studies measured gains to banks only, and measured only the performance improvements of recently consolidated institutions against other institutions, many of which had improved their performance due to previous consolidation.
“Yet even unconsolidated banks have improved their performance under the pressure of increased competition following the removal of branching restrictions, which permitted the consolidation wave in banking. And when an entire industry is involved in a protracted consolidation wave, the best indicator of the gains from consolidation is the performance of the industry as a whole. One study of bank productivity growth during the heart of the merger wave (1991-1997), by Kevin Stiroh, an economist at the New York Federal Reserve, found that it rose more than 0.4% per year.”
Overheard on the streets of New Haven, just ten minutes ago:
Two young women, almost certainly Yale undergraduates, are walking down York Street, discussing their efforts to get jobs as bankers.
Student #1: “Why does everyone want to go into banking?” [Note: When an Ivy League undergrad says "banking," he or she invariably means "investment banking," meaning underwriting or trading.]
Student #2: “We should advertise – ‘Being a lawyer is so much better than banking.’”
Student #1 (after a pause): “Seriously, everyone wants to go into banking.”
Also further proof that no one does campus recruiting better than a Wall Street investment bank. Or do undergrads these days want to work in investment banking after the financial crisis? At least, after the last twelve months, no one can claim that he didn’t know what kind of business he was getting into.
Update: I edited out a crack I made that, on reflection, was gratuitous. I’ll let the rest speak for itself.
By James Kwak
Posted in Commentary
Gillian Tett has the latest perspective on a curious deal that Barclays did earlier this week (hat tip Brad DeLong). The deal goes something like this. Two former Barclays execs are starting a fund called Protium Finance. Protium has two equity investors who are putting in $450 million. Barclays is lending Protium $12.6 billion. Protium is using the cash to buy $12.3 billion in what we used to call toxic assets from Barclays. Protium’s 45 staff members get a management fee of $40 million per year (presumably from the equity investors, although that seems steep). Returns from the investments will be paid as follows, in this order (and this is important): (1) fund management fees; (2) a guaranteed 7% return to investors; (3) repayment of the Barclays loan; and (4) residual cash flows to the investors.
Barclays emphasized that it was not participating in regulatory arbitrage, because it is keeping the toxic assets on its balance sheet for regulatory purposes. That is, because it has a lot of exposure to those assets through its huge loan, it will continue to hold capital against those assets. So far so good.
Probably most of you have already read David Cho’s Washington Post article on how the Big Four banks (a) have gotten bigger through the crisis, (b) have increased market share (“now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards”), (c) are using their market clout to increase fees (while small banks are lowering fees), and (d) enjoy lower funding costs because of the nearly-explicit government guarantee.
I just want to comment on this statement by Tim Geithner: “The dominant public policy imperative motivating reform is to address the moral hazard risk created by what we did, what we had to do in the crisis to save the economy.” (Emphasis added.)
Felix Salmon has a good example of why disclosure (the preferred consumer-protection regime of free-market conservatives and bankers) doesn’t work, courtesy of Ryan Chittum. The topic is no-interest balance transfers offered by credit card companies.
As Salmon points out, most people probably realize what the game is. That is, most people know that banks aren’t in the business of lending money for free; they know that the bank is betting that it can raise the interest rate before they pay off the balance. It’s possible that you will end up getting a free loan: “If you’re smart and disciplined and lucky, you might be able to game the system and pay no interest at all on that balance. Bank of America, for its part, does its very best to make you think that you’ll be able to do just that, essentially getting one over on The Man.” But the bank knows it has the numbers on its side; and most consumers know it too, because they know that’s the only reason the bank would make the offer.
This morning, Simon asked why community banks seem to be opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Felix Salmon agrees that community banks should be in favor of the CFPA, for three reasons: (1) the CFPA should increase the cost of complexity, not the “boring banking” that community banks are typically thought to do; (2) the CFPA should level the playing field with predatory lenders, saving community banks from the choice of losing market share or becoming predatory lenders themselves; and (3) the CFPA should shift competition from finding hidden ways to gouge customers to traditional underwriting, which should be a community bank strength. He later adds (4) the big banks’ big advantage is in deceiving customers, which the CFPA should be able to rein in.
Salmon thinks there are still two reasons why community banks may be afraid of the CFPA:
I think it’s a combination of fear of the unknown, on the one hand, and fear of the big banks, on the other. Since every regulator to date has been successfully captured by Wall Street, it’s reasonable to assume that the CFPA might end up being captured by Wall Street too. In which case the burdens of the CFPA might end up being borne disproportionately by smaller community banks.
I had a post criticizing John Carney on the topic of bankslaughter. However, I must say I agree with him when it comes to Goldman Sachs. Even more surprising, I largely agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial that Carney links to.
Mike from Rortybomb has an interview with Perry Mehrling on the shadow banking system. I was going to try to put this in some context, but Mark Thoma (who played an important role in this saga) beat me to it.
Merhling’s takeaway point is that there needs to be a “credit insurer of last resort,” who will insure any asset against a fall in value – for a sufficiently high premium. This would make it possible for financial institutions to unload the risk of their asset portfolios in a crisis, if they are willing to pay enough to do so. The only institution that would have the credibility to play this role in a real crisis would be the federal government; as we saw, AIG – the world’s largest insurance company, remember – was not up to the task. Still, though, I’m not sure this would do the trick. If I’m a large bank with a balance sheet full of toxic assets, and I don’t want to pay the premium that the insurer of last resort is charging, then I go to the government, say the price is too high, and ask for a bailout. The credit insurer of last resort would need to be coupled with a commitment not to provide an alternative form of government support, or we would end up where we are today.
By James Kwak
Posted in Commentary
It’s getting somewhat lonelier being a large financial institution skeptic, although there still a lot of us left. I would say that among the skeptics, the general view is that we may have seen an end to bank panics for this cycle – I’m not sure anyone is saying there will definitely be another crisis in the near future – but we may not have, and we may come to regret not taking stronger measures now. (How’s that for prognostication?)
Lucian Bebchuk, in Project Syndicate (a well-intentioned collaboration that manages to sound ominous and conspiratorial), makes the argument in clear terms. First, the recent stress tests only projected losses through 2010, ignoring the large number of loans and mortgage- and asset-backed securities that mature in later years. More fundamentally, though: “Rather than estimate the economic value of banks’ assets – what the assets would fetch in a well-functioning market – and the extent to which they exceed liabilities, the stress tests merely sought to verify that the banks’ accounting losses over the next two years will not exhaust their capital as recorded in their books.” Put another way, the focus has been on the accounting value of assets, not their economic value; so for a given asset, as long as it doesn’t have to be written down before the end of 2010, there is no problem.
Bebchuk also points out that the ability of banks to raise equity capital should not be taken as an “all clear” sign. As he and others have previously argued, equity in large banks by its very nature represents a leveraged bet whose downside risk is limited by the implicit government guarantee. That is, as a shareholder, if the economy does OK and bank assets appreciate in value, you get all of the upside (leveraged by the bank’s liabilities); if the economy does terribly and bank assets fall in value, your losses are not only limited to the amount of your investment, they are further limited by the implicit guarantee that the government will not wipe you out. That guarantee is weaker than the implicit guarantee on bank liabilities, but it is still there; given the way the government has treated Citigroup, Bank of America, and GMAC, betting on the “no more Lehmans” policy seems like a sensible bet.
Most attention is now focused on the battle over financial regulation (if it isn’t on health care and energy), which is appropriate. But it may be premature to declare victory over the financial crisis.
By James Kwak
Noam Scheiber at The New Republic has the inside scoop (hat tip Ezra Klein) on why Treasury is letting the Public-Private Investment Program die a quiet death (although at this point the legacy securities component may still go ahead). In short, the argument is that the point of PPIP was to help banks raise capital by cleaning up their balance sheets; since they have been able to raise capital themselves, there is no need for PPIP. According to one person Scheiber spoke to: “If you had asked–I don’t want to speak for the secretary–what’s problem number one? I think he’d say capital. Problem two? Capital. Problem three? Capital.”
This represents the latest swing of the pendulum between the two sides of the balance sheet. As anyone still reading about the financial crisis is probably aware, a balance sheet has two sides. On the left there are assets; on the right there are liabilities and equity; equity = assets minus liabilities. (There are different definitions of capital, depending on what subset of equity you use.)
A reader pointed me to this story in The Guardian citing Goldman insiders saying this could be the investment bank’s most profitable year ever.
Staff in London were briefed last week on the banking and securities company’s prospects and told they could look forward to bumper bonuses if, as predicted, it completed its most profitable year ever. Figures next month detailing the firm’s second-quarter earnings are expected to show a further jump in profits.
A couple months back I said that it would be unlikely for the banks to repeat their spectacular first-quarter results in the second quarter, because it depended on fixed-income revenues being even higher than during the peak of the boom. It looks like I was wrong.
Like most things, there are two ways to interpret this. For the optimists, if some of the big banks are making big profits, that gets us back to a normally functioning financial sector sooner and reduces the chance that they will face a panic in the short term. As many people have pointed out, including us, this is basically the Obama Administration’s strategy.
For the pessimists, the phoenix-rising-from-the-ashes profitability of the big banks is a direct result of massive government aid in the form of cheap money, liquidity programs, and let’s not forget the bailout of AIG; it’s also the result of reduced competition resulting from the consolidation of Bear Stearns into JPMorgan, the failure of Lehman, and the weakened state of Citigroup and Bank of America/Merrill. So the government bought a partially healthy banking sector (the big question is what Citi and B of A will report) with public funds, the few winners (Goldman, JPMorgan) are more powerful than ever, and the government is hoping to get an anemic regulatory reform package through Congress in exchange.
By James Kwak