Author: Simon Johnson

Goldman Sachs: “We Consider Our Size An Asset That We Try Hard To Preserve”

By Simon Johnson

To great fanfare, this week Goldman Sachs unveiled the report of its Business Standards Committee, which makes recommendations regarding changes for the internal structure of what is currently the 5th largest bank holding company in the United States. Some of the recommended changes are long overdue – particularly as they address perceived conflicts of interest between Goldman and its clients.

What is most notable about the report, however, is what it does not say. There is, in fact, no mention of any issues that are of first order importance regarding how Goldman (and other banks of its size and with its leverage) can have big negative effects on the overall economy. The entire 67 page report reads like an exercise in misdirection.

Goldman Sachs is ignoring the main point of the debate made by – among others – Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, regarding why big banks need to be much more financed by equity (and therefore have much less leverage, meaning lower debt relative to equity). On p.10 of his Bagehot Lecture in October 2010, for example, King was quite blunt: Continue reading “Goldman Sachs: “We Consider Our Size An Asset That We Try Hard To Preserve”” →

The Bill Daley Problem

By Simon Johnson, co-author of 13 Bankers (out in paperback on Monday)

Bill Daley, President Obama’s newly appointed chief of staff, is an experienced business executive. By all accounts, he is decisive, well-organized, and a skilled negotiator. His appointment, combined with other elements of the White House reshuffle, provides insight into how the president understands our economy – and what is likely to happen over the next couple of years. This is a serious problem.

This is not a critique from the left or from the right. The Bill Daley Problem is completely bipartisan – it shows us the White House fails to understand that, at the heart of our economy, we have a huge time bomb.

Until this week, Bill Daley was on the top operating committee at JP Morgan Chase. His bank – along with the other largest U.S. banks – have far too little equity and far too much debt relative to that thin level of equity; this makes them highly dangerous from a social point of view. These banks have captured the hearts and minds of top regulators and most of the political class (across the spectrum), most recently with completely specious arguments about why banks cannot be compelled to operate more safely. Top bankers, like Mr. Daley’s former colleagues, are intent of becoming more global – despite the fact that (or perhaps because) we cannot handle the failure of massive global banks. Continue reading “The Bill Daley Problem” →

Why Is The US Taxpayer Subsidizing Facebook – And The Next Bubble?

By Simon Johnson

Goldman Sachs is investing $450 million of its own money in Facebook, at a valuation that implies the social networking company is now worth $50 billion. Goldman is also apparently launching a fund that will bring its own high net worth clients in as investors for Facebook.

On the face of it, this might just seem like the financial sector doing what it is supposed to – channeling funds into productive enterprise. The SEC is apparently looking at the way private investors will be involved, but there are some more deeply unsettling factors at work here.

Remember that Goldman Sachs is now a bank holding company – a status it received in September 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, in order to avoid collapse (for the details, see Andrew Ross Sorkin’s blow-by-blow account in Too Big To Fail.) This means that it has essentially unfettered access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window, i.e., it can borrow against all kinds of assets in its portfolio, effective ensuring it has government-provided liquidity at any time.

Any financial institution with such access to such government support is likely to take on excessive risk – this is the heart of what is commonly referred to as the problem of “moral hazard.” If you are fully insured against adverse events, you will be less careful. Continue reading “Why Is The US Taxpayer Subsidizing Facebook – And The Next Bubble?” →

Why Can’t Europe Avoid Another Crisis? Why Can’t the U.S.?

By Simon Johnson

Most experienced watchers of the eurozone are expecting another serious crisis to break out in early 2011. This projected crisis is tied to the rollover funding needs of weaker eurozone governments, i.e., debts falling due in March through May, and therefore seems much more predictable than what happened to Greece or Ireland in 2010. The investment bankers who fell over themselves to lend to these countries on the way up, now lead the way in talking up the prospects for a serious crisis.

This crisis is not more preventable for being predictable because its resolution will involve politically costly steps – which, given how Europe works, can only be taken under duress. And don’t smile as you read this, because this same logic points directly to a deep and morally disturbing crisis heading directly at the United States.

The eurozone needs to – and will eventually – take three steps: Continue reading “Why Can’t Europe Avoid Another Crisis? Why Can’t the U.S.?” →

Tax Cutters Set Up Tomorrow’s Fiscal Crisis

By Simon Johnson. This post slightly updates the first few paragraphs of my most recent column on Bloomberg, which ran last week. For the rest of that column, use this link.

President Barack Obama is receiving congratulations for moving to the center on the tax agreement with Republicans.

Both sides think they got something: Democrats feel this will nudge unemployment below 8.5 percent in 2012, helping the president get reelected; Republicans achieved longstanding goals on measures such as the estate tax and think they will get most of the credit for an economic recovery that’s already under way.

The truth is, the deal moved us closer to a fiscal crisis, just as the euro zone now is experiencing.

Who will emerge on top in the U.S. version is harder to predict; at the moment, Republicans have the edge. But it’s not clear even they will be happy with what they wished for — an opportunity to enact massive federal government spending cuts.

To read the rest of this column, please click here. Alternatively, you can use the full address: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/tax-cutters-set-up-tomorrow-s-fiscal-crisis-commentary-by-simon-johnson.html

Bankers’ Pay On The Line Again

By Simon Johnson

The people who run big banks in the US have had a good year. They pushed back hard on financial reform legislation during the spring and were able to defeat the most serious efforts to constrain their power. They and their non-US colleagues scored an even bigger win at Basel this fall, where the international committee that sets financial safety standards decided to keep the required levels of equity in banks at dangerously low levels. And the counter narrative for the 2008 financial crisis, “Fannie Mae made me do it,” gained some high profile Republican adherents closely aligned with the men who will control the House Financial Services Committee in 2011-12.

But there is also a potential lump of coal in Santa’s sack for the biggest banks, in the form of restrictions of pay – both its structure and perhaps even the amounts (although officially the latter is not currently on the table). Continue reading “Bankers’ Pay On The Line Again” →

Delusions Of Fiscal Grandeur

By Simon Johnson

If you honestly believe that investors will happily buy up any amount of US government debt (at low interest rates) for the indefinite future, then relax. The tax deal passed yesterday should make you happy.

But if you fear that the US will soon be tested by financial markets – just as the eurozone is being tested today – then please read my column,”Voodoo Economics Revisited“, which is now on the Project Syndicate website. There is a well-established tradition in the Republican Party of thinking that tax cuts cure all ills; many in the Democratic leadership have apparently now fallen into line. We need to think hard about what our fiscal crisis will look like – and who will end up being hurt the most.

Another link to the column: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/johnson15/English

Republican Splits, Fiscal Opportunity

By Simon Johnson

An informative and potentially productive political debate has broken out over fiscal policy. Ironically, this is not between Democrats and Republicans – the leadership on both sides of the aisle is trying hard to agree that a moderate stimulus is worth increasing the national debt by nearly $900 billion. And the new debate is not particularly due to the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan commission or other serious efforts to put the real math on the table; those technical discussions have so far been brushed aside.

Rather the intensifying and illuminating debate is within the Republican Party – particularly between people who are reasonably presumed interested in running for the presidency in 2012. Continue reading “Republican Splits, Fiscal Opportunity” →

What Is Wrong With Cutting Taxes?

By Simon Johnson

The president and congressional Republicans have reached a deal that would cut taxes “for all Americans.” Their argument is that this package will stimulate the economy, create jobs and help lead to economic recovery and sustained growth.

This proposal, which seems likely to pass Congress, is not a good idea. Why? (To see me explain these points in a five-minute video, click here.) Vice President Dick Cheney said, loud and clear, in 2002: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

He was right that Ronald Reagan showed the Republican Party that you can get away with running significant deficits as a result of tax cuts – exactly the strategy of President George W. Bush.

But Mr. Cheney was completely wrong with regard to the implication that there are no economic consequences of sustained fiscal deficits. Continue reading “What Is Wrong With Cutting Taxes?” →

Should Megabanks Be Broken Apart? (NYT Room For Debate)

By Simon Johnson. This material was prepared as part of the New York Times’ Room for Debate on “Should Mega-Banks Be Broken Apart“? I strongly recommend the post by Anat Admati.

Writing in the Washington Post, in November 2009, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, argued:

“Creating the structures to allow for the orderly failure of a large financial institution starts with giving regulators the authority to facilitate failures when they occur. Under such a system, a failed bank’s shareholders should lose their value; unsecured creditors should be at risk and, if necessary, wiped out. A regulator should be able to terminate management and boards and liquidate assets. Those who benefited from mismanaging risks or taking on inappropriate risk should feel the pain.”

But the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation does not create a “resolution mechanism” that can deal with cross-border megabanks; this point is admitted by all involved. And there is nothing in the G20 process or underway with any other international forum that would make a difference in this regard. Continue reading “Should Megabanks Be Broken Apart? (NYT Room For Debate)” →

What Jamie Dimon Won’t Tell You: His Big Bank Would Be Dangerously Leveraged

By Anat Admati, Professor of Finance and Economics at Stanford Graduate School of Business. To see her explain these issues in person, watch this Bloomberg interview. This is a long post, about 3,500 words.

The debate is raging about banks and their size, financial regulation, and the international capital standards known as “Basel”. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, in his New York Times magazine profile, expresses admiration for the Basel committee and says,

“… they are asking the questions that, in theory, bankers ask of themselves: how much capital do banks need to withstand the inevitable downturn, and what is an acceptable level of risk?”

There is one problem, however. Basel may have asked the right question, but it did not come up with the right answers, mainly because it allows banks to remain dangerously leveraged, setting equity requirements way too low. This fact is not understood because the debate on capital regulation has been mired with a cloud of confusion, and filled with un-substantiated assertions by bankers and others. As a result, the issues appear much more mysterious and complicated than they actually are.

After a massive and incredibly costly financial crisis, we seem to have financial system that is a more consolidated, more powerful, more profitable and, yes, as fragile and dangerous as we had before the crisis. How did this happen and what can we do?

Here are some questions on which the confusion is staggering. Continue reading “What Jamie Dimon Won’t Tell You: His Big Bank Would Be Dangerously Leveraged” →

Jamie Dimon: Becoming Too Big To Save – Creating Fiscal Disaster

By Simon Johnson

In Sunday’s New York Times magazine, Roger Lowenstein profiles Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase. The piece, titled “Jamie Dimon: America’s Least-Hated Banker,” is generally sympathetic, but in every significant detail it confirms that Mr. Dimon is now – without question – our most dangerous banker.

Mr. Dimon is not dangerous because he is in any narrow sense incompetent. On the contrary, Mr. Dimon is very good at getting what he wants. And now he wants to run a bigger, more interconnected, and more global bank that – if it were to fail – would cause great chaos around the world. Lowenstein writes,

“Dimon has always been unusually blunt, and he told me that not only are big banks like JP Morgan (it has $2 trillion in assets) not too big, but that they should be allowed to grow bigger.” Continue reading “Jamie Dimon: Becoming Too Big To Save – Creating Fiscal Disaster” →

Imminent Eurozone Default: How Likely?

By Simon Johnson

The big question of the week in Europe is deceptively simple – will any countries that share the euro as their currency default on their government or bank debts in the foreseeable future? The answer to this question determines how you regard bonds from countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Belgium.

Answering this question is not as simple as it seems, however, because it involves taking a view on three intricate issues: What exactly is the eurozone policy now on bailouts, can big eurozone countries really be bailed out if needed, and what happens to the politics of these countries and of the eurozone has a whole as pressure from the financial markets mounts?

The prevailing consensus – and definite official spin – is that over the weekend European leaders backed away from the German proposal to impose losses on creditors as a condition of future bailouts, i.e., from 2013. The markets, in this view, should and likely will calm now; there is no immediate prospect of any kind of sovereign default or (more politely) “reprofiling” on debt, including the obligations of big banks.

But a close reading of the Eurogroup ministers’ statement from Sunday suggests quite a different interpretation. It’s a straightforward text, just 2 ½ pages long, but it has potentially momentous consequences – as it envisages dividing future eurozone crises into two kinds. Continue reading “Imminent Eurozone Default: How Likely?” →

The Economics and Politics of Elizabeth Warren

By Simon Johnson

Congressional Republicans are apparently intent on a big showdown with Elizabeth Warren, who is currently building up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

This is very good news for the White House, if they use this opportunity wisely.

Some Republicans seem to think that Ms. Warren is about “big government” or “intrusive regulation”. But this is not the case – Elizabeth Warren’s approach is much more appealing and already popular with almost everyone on right and left: Transparency. Continue reading “The Economics and Politics of Elizabeth Warren” →

The Eurozone Endgame: Four Scenarios

By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

In the aftermath of the Irish bailout, the German proposal for a future sovereign and/or senior bank debt restructuring mechanism within the eurozone makes complete political sense to the electorate in stronger European countries. They do not want to write “blank checks” to weaker countries and to out-of-control financial institutions going forward; creditors to countries that run into trouble will face likely losses.

While the details of this “burden sharing” approach remain to be hammered out (after Sunday’s announcements), there is no way for German or other politicians to backtrack on the broad strategic principles. But once this arrangement is in place, say in 2013 or thereabouts, all eurozone countries will (a) be able to sustain less debt than has recently been regarded as the norm, and (b) become vulnerable to the kinds of speculative attacks in debt markets that we have seen in recent weeks – to reduce funding rollover dangers, they will all need to lengthen the maturity of their outstanding debt.

The end point is clear. Last week the markets began to work backwards to today’s debt profiles; major disruptions still lie ahead.

Ultimately, there will be a eurozone will greater shared fiscal authority, a common cross-border resolution authority for failed banks, and likely greater economic integration. But there are four scenarios regarding who ends up in that eurozone – and how we get there. Continue reading “The Eurozone Endgame: Four Scenarios” →