Find Insurance Online

In 2010, Richard Fuld, the former CEO of Lehman Brothers, told a congressional committee that he had "absolutely no recollection whatsoever of hearing anything" about Repo 105 at the time of the transactions. Lehman's demise, he claimed, was caused by "uncontrollable market forces" and the U.S. government's unwillingness to rescue the firm. Of course, Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury Secretary in 2008, had tried in vain to get Fuld to accept a buyer offering a reasonable price; Fuld had been holding out for more in spite of the financial condition of Lehman. It is stunning that a man who had been allowed to reach such a pristine and lofty office in the business world would not even permit himself to acknowledge any contributory role in the downfall of the organization he had run. Such an attitude alone seems worthy of a prison sentence (and the return of his salary and bonuses); how he and his "team" had manipulated the books to make the bank look wealthier than it was would seem to make such a sentence inevitable.

However, as of March 15, 2011, no high-profile executives involved in the finacial crisis of 2008 had been successfully prosecuted. In Feburary of the same year, for example, a federal criminal investigation of former Countrywide Financial Corp. Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo had been, according to The New York Times, "closed without charges." Regarding "the battered real-estate portfolio and an accounting move known as Repo 105," the paper reported that SEC officials were growing more worried in the early months of 2011 that "they could lose a court battle if they bring civil charges that allege Lehman investors were duped by company executives. The key stumbling block: The accounting move, while controversial, isn't necessarily illegal." This is an extremely important point, for it means that FASB, the non-profit quasi-regulatory body that promulgates generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States, is too permissive--too accommodating of how executives of publicly-held corporations want to value assets and liabilities.

Punctum saliens, the means by which accounting standards are determined is too susceptible to influence from CPA firms and their clients, the public corporations being audited.  The structural conflict of interest existing between the "independent" auditors and their clients is magnified to the extent that either of the two parties have inordinate influence on FASB.  Even if a government agency such as the SEC were to set the regulations, there would still be the risk that the accounting firms and/or public corporations could gain leverage over the regulators, in what is called regulatory capture. The root problem behind both allowing the conflict of interest and being too accommodating in terms of GAAP is that Americans, and thus the values in American culture, are too conducive to business--meaning not sufficiently realistic concerning the possibility of greed and any resulting harm. An examination of why the Lehman executives could manipulate their books unfairly and yet legally points to this proclivity manifested through a too-flawed and friendly accounting regulatory system.

The New York Times reports that in March of the same year in which Richard Fuld testified before Congress to disavow any responsibility in the failure of the bank he had run, "the Repo 105 transactions were condemned by court-appointed examiner Anton R. Valukas, who said in a report that they enabled Lehman to 'paint a misleading picture of its financial condition.' . . . In the transactions, Lehman swapped fixed-income assets for cash shortly before the securities firm reported quarterly results, promising to buy back the securities later. The cash was used to pay down the company's debts. Emails sent by executives at the company referred to Repo 105 as a 'drug' and 'basically window dressing.'" Valukas concluded there were "colorable," or credible, legal claims against Ernst & Young, Fuld and former Lehman finance chiefs Ian Lowitt, Erin Callan and Christopher O'Meara. Indeed, when he was the Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo criticized the Repo 105 transactions as a "house-of-cards business model, designed to hide billions in liabilities in the years before Lehman collapsed."  The implication is that Fuld and his subordinate managers had committed fraud.

Even so, Ernst & Young "had concluded that the accounting in the Repo 105 transactions was acceptable."  In a statement, Ernst & Young "said," we stand "behind our work on the Lehman audit and our opinion that Lehman's financial statements were fairly stated in accordance with the U.S. accounting standards that existed at the time." (italics added) Fairness, in other words, depends solely on whether the books of a company are in line with the accounting standards, rather than on whether the values recorded on the books reflect the values of the underlying assets and liabilities. In terms of the repos at Lehman, The New York Times reports that SEC officials generally concluded that "the transactions were consistent with accounting standards." Successfully prosecuting former Lehman execcutives for making misleading statements about the bank's financial condition is an uphill battle, according to the paper, because the executives relied on legal and accounting opinions. Furthermore, in his report, Valukas wrote that he didn't find "sufficient evidence to support a colorable claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with any of Lehman's valuations." Also, SEC officials were not "convinced that Lehman shareholders suffered material harm, since executives were trading one type of highly liquid asset for another." However, the apparently lower debt levels might have influenced existing and potential investors in their decision-making regarding their level of exposure from investing in Lehman. In other words, their risk was being deliberately understated by Lehman's management. Even if particular investors were not actually harmed, showing an apparent lower risk than would be the case without the repos (and cost valuations on the real estate investments) was not in the investors' interest. Moreover, it just isn't fair, even if it is legal because it is allowed by GAAP. The problem, in other words, extends from Fuld and his sycophants at Lehman to the FASB.

The wrench in the works with my thesis is the fact that there are indeed different ways in which an asset or liability can be valued fairly. There are different viable assumptions, for example, regarding whether an asset should be valued at cost or market. Each assumption has a downside. Showing a real estate investment at cost, for instance, has the downside that the market-value of the asset, if significantly lower, is not shown. That is, the transactions-value of the asset at the time is ignored. Even if the firm intends to hold the asset, the lower market value would determine what the firm could do with that asset in covering for any needed debt payments. On the other hand, if market values fluctuate substantially, changes in an asset's value may not make much difference to the underlying value of the asset, and thus to the firm, especially if the firm intends to hold the asset long term.  To the extent that speculators can artificially push up or short an asset's market price, the latter does not reflect the underlying, or fundamental, value of the asset or even the real supply and demand (e.g., oil price hikes in the wake of the Libyan disruptions in 2011). Unfortunately, the companies being regulated and the accounting firms they hire can use such authentic debates to open GAAP up wider than a sloppy whore so they can have their way with her in order to look better than they are. That such selfishness, deceitfulness and greed can be accommodated by GAAP, and thus the FASB, and ultimately the American electorates, is the real problem, and unfortunately there is not an easy solution because the basic problem lies in values and assumptions held by a population.

As useful as flexibility is in accommodating different assumptions and plans regarding assets and liabilities, the refusal of FASB to fortify its sanctioned accounting methods with conditions so investors are not misled--a refusal that I contend is from inordinate influence from the regulated and their public accountants--means that managers running publicly-held companies like Lehman Brothers are enabled to do practically-speaking whatever they want to show the public (and the owners) only the asset values and debt levels that they want. Allowing only cost to value real estate, for instance, could be conditioned not on whether the firm intends to hold the asset (a subjective matter that a manager could manipulate and even falsify), but rather on the extent of difference in percentage terms between the market value and cost. An accounting breed of relativism unchecked allows for and enables greed. Lest we want to succumb to such decadence, fairly stated ought not be tied to conforms to GAAP if the latter is too tolerant. The regulated will always prefer relativism in regulation.  Even if GAAP is tightened, fairly stated ought not to be determined solely in terms of those standards. Additionally, CPA firms ought to be on the look out for fraud or misleading practices even if they are allowed by the FASB's standards.  The latter are means rather than ends in themselves. According to Kant, beings of a rational nature must be treated as ends in themselves (as well as means). GAAP are not rational beings.

Beyond changes in GAAP and what CPA firms are charged to look at, the friendliness of the FASB to the business world, or at the very least the extent of the organization's accommodation, should convince the American people and government officials that more government regulatory involvement is warranted. While some government regulators could come from industry to contribute their technical knowledge, they should be checked by superiors who have a healthy skepticism of business and a salient regard, or value, for the public interest. Ultimately, it is up to the American people, operating through our elected officials and the related governmental agencies, to stand up to the temptation to have regulation esssentially by the regulatees. However, this requires esteeming values that are sufficiently realistic concerning the role that greed and selfishness can play in those of us who run the world of business. Power as well as money can be intoxicating, especially in high doses. Lest the value of economic liberty blind us to this subterranean all-too-human propensity, we as a society could pay more attention to the societal blind spot of structural or institutional conflicts of interest implicit in the very design of some of our most important regulatory systems.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597804576194871565429108.html

Click to add a Comment or Question (or View Posted Comments) on business ethics at Lehman Brothers.


On greed, see related essay, "Godliness and Greed": http://thewordenreport.blogspot.com/2011/02/godliness-greed-how-effective-is.html

On Lehman's corporate governance, see: http://thewordenreport.blogspot.com/2011/02/godliness-greed-how-effective-is.html

Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010, Goldman Sachs had to break up its principal strategies group, the trading unit that had been very profitable. Goldman was considering several options, including moving the traders to another division or shutting the unit altogether. Morgan Stanley was considering ceding control of its $7 billion hedge fund firm, FrontPoint Partners. At Citigroup, executives had sold hedge fund and private equity businesses and were discussing reducing proprietary trading, which relies on a bank’s own capital to make bets in the financial markets. JPMorgan Chase had already begun dismantling its stand-alone proprietary trading desk and was modifying the structure of some investments of One Equity Partners, its internal private equity business. “This is the real stuff,” said Brad Hintz, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. “It shows that if you squeeze Wall Street, like a balloon it will come out somewhere else, and we really are squeezing Wall Street. Their business models are changing.”

However, loopholes in the legislation may enable the banks to continue to trade on their own books, even apart from serving as a counterparty for client transactions. Citigroup and others, for instance, are considering moving proprietary traders to desks that handle trades for clients, although the traders would still be able to make their own bets in the markets. The Volcker Rule’s definition of proprietary trading is open to interpretation. At first blush, it looks watertight: the rule forbids banks from buying and selling financial products for their “trading account.” That, in turn, is defined as an account meant to profit in the “near term” from “short term” movements in prices. Besides not covering such long term bets as shorting in anticipation of a fall in the housing market, the rule states that banks can still trade government and agency securities for their own account. Some of the problems at the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management stemmed from trying to arbitrage prices between Treasuries of different terms. And the Carlyle Capital Corporation, a heavily leveraged debt fund, crashed in 2008 when prices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage bonds dropped. So in allowing for continued proprietary trading apart from serving as a short-term counterparty for a client’s transaction, the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform law may not change Wall Street’s landskip all that much. This is hardly surprising, as members of Congress allowed the banking lobby to participate in the writing of the legislation in spite of the industry’s culpability in the financial crisis of 2008.

Click to add a question or comment on proprietary trading and financial reform.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/business/06wall.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=wall%20st%20faces%20specter%20of%20lost&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/business/06views.html?scp=1&sq=anthony%20currie%20christopher%20swann&st=Search

According to The New York Times, even after taxpayers rescued Citigroup, regulators at the New York Federal Reserve failed to monitor the company adequately. The regulators, although adequately staffed and proficient in training, failed to move swiftly as the bank’s financial condition deteriorated from as early as 2005, and were overly optimistic about the bank’s prospects as late as December, 2009. From 2006 to 2007, decisions on poorly underwritten loans were changed from “turned down” to “approved.” As many as 80 percent of the loans that Citigroup sold to Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae and other investors were defective. “Although the dedicated supervisory team is well-qualified and generally has sound knowledge of the organization, there have been significant weaknesses in the execution of the supervisory program,” according to one excerpt of the 2009 review. Tim Geithner, who as president of the New York Fed from 2003 to 2008 was in charge of overseeing Citigroup, went on to become the US Secretary of the Treasury.

In questioning a panel testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on April 7, 2010, Brooksley E. Born, the former regulator in the Clinton administration who had lost the battle over derivatives regulation to Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers, called on Greenspan in his testimony to defend his longtime deregulatory bent. “The Fed utterly failed to prevent the financial crisis,” she said. She went on to claim, “The Fed and the banking regulators failed to prevent the housing bubble. They failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal. They failed to prevent our biggest banks and bank holding companies from engaging in activities that would bring them to the verge of collapse without massive taxpayer bailouts… . Didn’t the Federal Reserve fail to meet its mandates, fail to meet it responsibilities?” Greenspan replied that there was a failure: an underestimation of the “state and extent” of financial risks and the ability of private counterparties to assess them, but he added that, “(t)he notion that somehow my views on regulation were predominant and effective at influencing the Congress is something you may have perceived,” he said. “But it didn’t look that way from my point of view.” However, according to other accounts, the trioka of Summers, Rubin and Greenspan had gone after Born for wanted to regulate the derivatives (see, for example, Sorkin’s Too Big To Fail). The three did indeed lobby Congress in an effort to sabatage Born’s proposal. Besides reporting this, Sorkin also points out that Citigroup’s CEO and its major stockholder were instrumental in getting Geithner appointed as President of the New York Fed. A coincidence with the overly optimistic view of the Fed’s regulators regarding Citi?

In questioning Robert Rubin on April 8th, Born (and other commissioners) asked why derivatives were kept unregulated. Rubin replied that the bankers were strongly opposed to such regulation, and they were able to effect their stand in Congress. Rubin did not go into the efforts of him, Summers and Greenspan to lobby Congress to keep the instruments unregulated; instead, he claimed that he favored regulating the derivatives even when he was at Goldman Sachs supervising the bank’s trading desk, and that when at Treasury he was merely concerned that regulating the instruments under the existing regulatory structure could cause delaying legal challenges. While Rubin’s frankness concerning the influence of the bankers in the US Government is useful, his testimony regarding himself seems less than forthcoming. Presumably he could have lobbied Congress as the Treasury Secretary for a new regulatory authority to regulate the derivatives on a solid legal basis. Instead, he lobbied against Born’s efforts to get the instruments regulated. He admitted that the financial sector would have been strongly opposed to such a regulatory authority. Also, he had been on the board of Citigroup and an executive at Goldman Sachs. The conflict of interest is too strong in his case for his asseverations that he had always acted in favor of regulating the instruments to be believable. His “worry of legal challenges” strikes me as a technical excuse that he was using as a subterfuge to “explain” his opposition to Born’s efforts to regulate the derivatives. Doubtless he could count on the American public and its media for not digging sufficiently to expose his duplicity. That is to say, it is likely that Rubin got away with protecting his ex-bank’s interests when he was Secretary of the Treasury and was strategically able to come off as having advocated the public interest all along. Hence, in general, the culpits were able to maintain their credibility and position themselves to be the officials we turn to to fix the problem.

The influence of the bankers in the halls of government (and its central bank) is perhaps the cause of the Fed’s deficiencies in regulating Citigroup (and in the Clinton Administration’s position against regulating the sub-prime mortgage derivative securities). In the case of the New York Fed, the board that appoints the NY Fed President consists of Wall Street bankers. There is a structural conflict of interest in having the regulated appoint the regulator. This structural conflict of interest manifested itself materially in the case of Tim Geithner and Citigroup. This is a textbook example of a conflict of interest, and yet it went under the radar screen. The focus in regulatory deficiency is typically instead on whether the regulators are sufficiently staffed and trained, and perhaps on whether they are relying too much on information from the regulatees. The more basic structural conflicts of interest are rarely made transparent, yet we will continue to see regulatory “deficiencies” manifest from them unless structural or institutional reforms are made. I am continually amazed at how such glaring institutional conflicts of interest are ignored by the public and the media. I would expect the politicians and the business practioners to try to keep it hush hush, but the inability of the American people to grasp the problem confounds my attempt to explain it.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/08panel.html?ref=us ; CSPAN.

To put a matress under a falling giant pales in comparison to placing a sign on Wall Street, reading “No giants allowed.”

In April of 2010, President Obama gave a speech in New York City to counter what he called “the furious efforts of industry lobbyists” trying to weaken or kill new financial regulations that he claimed are needed to stave off a second Great Depression.  It is telling that the banks that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 were trying to diminish any new regulation. The President wanted more consumer protections, limits on the size of banks and the risks they can take, reforms on executive compensation and greater transparency for controversial securities known as derivatives.  He maintained that each of these areas must be in any bill that he signs. In giving the speech with some of the banking titans in the audience, the President wanted to confront the financial industry more directly through a sharp speech. After castigating their “failure of responsibility” in recent years, he called on them to stop resisting tighter regulation through the army of lobbyists now staked out on Capitol Hill. The president’s address at Cooper Union in Lower Manhattan circled back to another speech he had given at the same location in March 2008 warning of financial manipulation, market bubbles and the concentration of economic power.

Analysis:

At the time of his speech, the President was supporting the bills coming out of the House and Senate, neither of which forestall or minimize market bubbles and reduce the concentration of economic power.  Regarding the latter, it is my understanding that nothing in either bill limits the the size of the big banks.  For the President to say that the bill reaching his desk must include something limiting the size of institutions in the US financial sector yet also say that he supports the bills coming out of Congress does not make sense as it involves a contradiction. On the eve of the President’s speech, Fox News pointed out that the President’s chief of staff had met behind closed doors with reps of Wall Street firms. The message was reportedly: we’ve got to trash you in public, but know that we will take care of you in private.  While Fox News was at the time certainly no friend of the President, the account would explain why the President would contradict himself concerning the size issue.   Given the inevitable lag of regulators amid the fast pace of innovation in product development on Wall Street, simply regulating existing products would not forestall another crisis; the concentration of private capital in the form of large banks must be reduced for “too big to fail” to be effectively mitigated.  Sadly, the President will probably get away with demanding limits on the banks’ size while signing bills that do not contain such language.  That he received just under a million dollars from Goldman Sachs in his Presidential campaign is just part of the story, for once elected the President was undoubtedly focused on 2012.  Recalling Andrew Jackson, who successfully took on the bank of the US by refusing to fund it in 1832, and Theodore Roosevelt, who supported the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1911, I must admit to thinking that Barak Obama does not have their guts to take on the big guys. How many of us in the twenty-first century remember Jackson or Roosevelt?  We are more likely to make our current President the default from which we measure.  I submit that this is a mistake.  If we ignore or are ignorant of the strong points in our history, we cannot benefit from them and we are doomed to repeat the weak points.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/business/economy/23prexy.html?hp

In the process whereby financial reform legislation made its way through Congress after the financial crisis of 2008, the U.S. House and Senate had different approaches concerning who would be required to go through a clearing house to buy or sell deriviative securities. According to Michael Masters, "The clearing house would stand in the middle of the transaction and guarantee both sides of the trade. If one counterparty to the transaction fails, then the central counterparty absorbs those losses, protecting the system as a whole from collapse."  Masters claims that "Wall Street firms hate this idea because their prodigious profits will dwindle when derivatives are traded in the light of day, letting their counterparties see the true costs. So Wall Street is pushing hard to exempt as many transactions as possible."  Given the culpability of Wall Street in the financial crisis, they were in no position to "push hard." That they did nonetheless is a telling sign of the underlying character, or lack thereof, "on the street."  Furthermore, that the representatives and senators were listening to them ought to cause the voters some concern.  Yet because of the reality of the banks' muscle on the hill, the power of the banks to exploit any loopholes in the final legislation should have been salient as the legislation made its way through Congress. This can be seen in whether to favor the House or Senate version.

According to Masters, "The Senate version of the clearing house requirement, which is currently the base text for the bill, includes a narrow, well-defined exemption that allows commercial end-users a complete exemption from clearing, while denying this exemption to financial players. The House language, however, would exempt anyone hedging "balance sheet risk." Since every financial player has a balance sheet, it is estimated that more than 50% of the outstanding derivatives would go uncleared under the House plan, compared to just 10% under the Senate version."  One might say: Ah, 50% is a pretty wide door--better go with the Senate version (assuming it could resist threats and favors from the banking lobby).

Masters explains the rationale for the Senate's version. There "is a critical policy distinction that must be made between commercial end-users like airlines, and financial entities like hedge funds. For a commercial end-user, risk arises naturally out of the ordinary conduct of business. For a financial entity, pricing and managing risk is their core business. As an example, an airline cannot fly without incurring the risk of wildly gyrating jet fuel prices. Allowing them to hedge their jet fuel exposure without a clearing requirement would provide stability for the airline, confidence for airline investors and ensure that the broad U.S. economy benefits from reliable airline service. A hedge fund, however, starts with no inherent risk. Its mission is to evaluate investment options, balancing risk and reward. If a hedge fund enters into a jet fuel derivatives contract on a bet that prices will increase, then it's nonsense to say that they are "hedging" when they subsequently enter into an offsetting deal to reduce the risk they voluntarily took on in the first place. These semantic charades can easily be carried to such extremes that every transaction a hedge fund enters is "hedging" something. An exemption for hedge funds serves no social purpose and, in fact, it puts our entire financial system at risk."  In other words, there are good business reasons for non-financial companies to be able to use derivatives to hedge for risk related to price volitility even if the companies cannot meet the clearing requirements. Of course, it could be asked what proportion of commercial use should but would not occur were such use subject to the clearing house requirements.  I don't know the answer to this question. I contend, however, that even if it is significant, the danger that the loophole would be exploited such that the financial system would once again be at risk outweighs any such inconvenience.  In other words, in reaching too far for perfect efficiency, we could unwittingly be inviting the irrational exuberance of the market to destroy the market mechanism itself.  We ought not fly too close to the sun or we might get burnt and fall to the ground. Masters concludes that the Senate language is "superior to the House's simply because it forces far more derivatives into the open." This may be so, but what would prevent a financial player from using a commercial user as a front to bypass the clearing requirements? Furthermore, there might be legislative language in the exemption that allows financial firms to obviate the clearing houses without even needing such a front.

In short, I contend that having any loopholes, or exeptions, is an unwise practice when we know (as Sen. Dick Durbin said) that the banking lobby owns Congress. We also know that managers and their lawyers are oriented to exploiting loopholes.  To expect otherwise is to tell a shark that it should not be a feeding machine.  That is, we must accept the nature of business for what it is, and not do what can reasonably be assumed to be taken advantage of.  It is like saying to sharks: those of you who do not eat any swimmers can go through the hole in the net and into the shore area.  It is just too dangerous to have a hole in the first place, even if there are some benefits to having it.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/23/news/economy/congress_derivatives/index.htm

Goldman Sachs’ settlement with the SEC in July, 2010 amounts to just two weeks of profits for the bank—hardly even a slap on the wrist.  However, the bankers had to concede that they had not had “full and complete disclosure in their marketing materials.”  Even so, few if any clients left the bank in the wake of the settlement. To be sure, since the impropriety had come to light in Sen. Karl Levin’s investigations subcommittee, Goldman had slipped in the pecking order of top underwriters of stocks and bonds to eighth. There is reason to think this was the extent of the damage.  Oklahoma’s Teachers Retirement System, for example, was unlikely to terminate Goldman even though the system’s general director said he was disappointed in the admission.

In general terms, the US Government was having trouble holding bankers accountable for the financial crisis of 2008. Wall Street’s defense that the bankers had simply made mistakes does not explain the liars’ loans or Goldman’s knowingly misleading clients who went long on subprime derivative securities. The government’s difficulty could itself give Wall Street an incentive to keep up the deceit.  That the market mechanism does not reflect the fraud by removing the offenders suggests a second major drawback—the first being internal volitility from irrational exuberance.  On the government side, even with regulations on the books and a willingness to enforce them, it may simply be too difficult for anyone to prove fraud when Wall Street is hanging together rather than turning each other in. That is to say, both the market mechanism and regulation may not be able to correct for the risk involved in the existence of banks too big to fail. In a way, we all enable the presumptiveness of fraud by refusing to break up the big banks both organizationally and in terms of ownership.  A lesson available from the financial crisis of 2008 might be that we can ill-afford to continue to enable giants who could fall on us any day.

Sources: Thomas Catan and Kara Scannell, “Convictions From Crisis Hard,” Wall Street Journal (July 17-18, 2010), B2; Susanne Craig and Randall Smithy, “For Goldman, Reputation Reclamation Project,” Wall Street Journal (July 17-18, 2010), B1-2.

Testifying before the US Senate Finance Committee on his re-appointment, Ben Bernanke volunteered that the Fed had been “slow” in protecting consumers from high-risk mortgages during the housing bubble and that it should have forced banks to hold more capital for all the risks they were taking on.  “In the area where we had responsibility, the bank holding companies, we should have done more.” he told lawmakers.  The hearing provided new evidence of doubt among lawmakers about the Federal Reserve’s  role as the nation’s guardian of the financial system. “In the face of rising home prices and risky mortgage underwriting, the Fed failed to act,” said Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee. “Many of the Fed’s responses, in my view, greatly amplified the problem of moral hazard stemming from ‘too big to fail’ treatment of large financial institutions and activities.”  Accordingly, Senator Dodd proposed that the Fed’s powers as a bank regulator ought to be transferred to a new consolidated agency. Even though Bernanke admitted that the Fed made mistakes as a regulator of the bank holding companies, he and other top Fed officials adamantly opposed Dodd's proposal, arguing that the Fed has unique expertise nonetheless and that the Fed's ability to preserve financial stability depends on having the detailed information that only a regulator has about the inner workings of major institutions.

The Fed has “unique expertise," and yet, “In the area where we had responsibility, the bank holding companies, we should have done more.”   In other words, the Fed’s Chairman admitted that his agency had not done a satisfactory job of regulating banks during the housing bubble and yet his organization should be given even more power as a regulator anyway.  Were we to trust the Fed to regulate systemic risk, given the agency’s squalid record leading up to the financial crisis of 2008? Regardless of what qualms this question may have raised, the Dodd-Frank legislation charged the Fed with guarding the financial stability of the United States. It gave the central bank the power to oversee the largest financial institutions, even if they are not banks. Finally, it gave the Fed a prominent role on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a body of regulators that will have the power to seize a systemically important company if it threatens the stability of the economy. Testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on September 2, 2010, Bernanke signaled that the central bank was eager to embrace its strengthened role provided for in the Dodd-Frank law. This role ought to give us pause, given his remarks in 2007 in which he thought the subprime problems were “manageable.” To the Commission in 2010, he said, “What I did not recognize was the extent to which the system had flaws and weaknesses in it that were going to amplify the initial shock from subprime and make it into a much bigger crisis.”

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/economy/04fed.html?ref=business ; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/business/03commission.html?_r=1&ref=business

Testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on September 2, 2010, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, observed, “As of 2003 and 2004, there really was quite a bit of disagreement among economists about whether there was a bubble, how big it was, whether it was a local or a national bubble. We certainly were aware it was a risk factor, but frankly by the time it was clear it was a bubble” it was too late to address it through monetary policy. The NYT also reported that he spoke favorably of forcing huge banks to hold much more capital, particularly if they were systemically important — so much capital, indeed, that being big would be costly. He advocated that the increased capital requirements should include capital that is more aligned with risk and able to absorb losses more effectively, and that works in a countercyclical manner, so that banks have more of it during times of stress. Given the difficulty involved in recognizing a bubble even as it crests, Bernanke’s statements on capital-holding changes make sense. Absent breaking up banks too big to fail, making it very costly for them to be big is the next best option. The regulators would be wise to be on the look out, however, for bankers who try to hide their banks’ true sizes (and risk). Given the empire-building proclivity in the business world, designing a system that makes bigness more costly could result in an overall balance of forces. The key is to make being big sufficiently costly so that the drive to empire-build is sufficiently checked.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/business/03commission.html?_r=1&ref=business

Negotiations between “the European Parliament, the EU government and the EU’s executive commission [are paving] the way for the new supervisory system” in banking. Four new EU regulatory agencies have been proposed, including a European Systemic Risk Board. Relatedly, the US has legislated for a systemic risk board and for additional powers to the Federal Reserve to regulate banks (and other firms deemed too big to fail).  In other words, the regulatory responses to the financial crisis of 2008 are happening on the US and EU levels. The EU allows for more active state government. For example, regarding the failure of a large bank in more than one state of the EU, the EU officials will have the power to step in if the relevant states are in disagreement. Presumably if each of the relevant state governments agree on how to deal with a given large bank, the EU regulators would not get involved. Herein lies an important distinction between the EU and US—the US Government getting involved even where relevant states agree. That is to say, there is a better balance of federalism in the EU.  That the new regulators are at the EU and US level means that they (i.e., the regulatory bodies) can be compared without needing to correct for them being at different levels.

Source: Europe’s 4-Regulator Solution, WSJ, September 3, 2010, p. C2.

In January, 2011, the Financial Crisis Commission announced its findings. The usual suspects are not much of a surprise; what is particularly notable is how little had changed on Wall Street since the crisis in September of 2008. According to the New York Times, "The report examined the risky mortgage loans that helped build the housing bubble; the packaging of those loans into exotic securities that were sold to investors; and the heedless placement of giant bets on those investments." In spite of the Financial Reform Act of 2010 and the panel's report, the New York Times reports that "little on Wall Street has changed." One commissioner, Byron S. Georgiou, a Nevada lawyer, said the financial system was “not really very different” today from before the crisis. “In fact, the concentration of financial assets in the largest commercial and investment banks is really significantly higher today than it was in the run-up to the crisis, as a result of the evisceration of some of the institutions, and the consolidation and merger of others into larger institutions,” he said. Richard Baker, the president of the Managed Funds Association, told the <i>Financial Times</i>, "The most recent financial crisis was caused by institutions that didn't know how to adequately manage risk and were over-leveraged. And I worry that if there is another crisis, it will be because the same institutions have failed to learn from the mistakes of the past." From the testimonies of managers of some of those institutions, one might surmise that the lack of learning has been due to a refusal to admit to even a partial role in the 2008 crisis.  In other words, there appears to be a crisis of mentality, which is not easily fixed.

To comprehend the danger in the continuance of the status quo, it is helpful to digest the panel's findings. The crisis commission found "a bias toward deregulation by government officials, and mismanagement by financiers who failed to perceive the risks." This ought to raise a red flag when we hear politicians urge more deregulation.  "Don't they get it?" one might reasonably conclude. Lest it be thought that the panel proffered a pro-government verdict, however, the commission also concluded that "Fannie and Freddie had loosened underwriting standards, bought and guaranteed riskier loans and increased their purchases of mortgage-backed securities because they were fearful of losing more market share to Wall Street competitors." These two organizations were not really market participants, however, as they were guaranteed by the U.S. Government. That government-backed corporations would act so much like private competitive firms undercuts the assumed civic mission that premises government-underwriting. In other words, the government-backed entities were neither civic as from government nor effective as private companies. In other words, government-established "firms" can behave like the private companies they were intended to check, yet this does not mean that more de-regulation is the solution.

In terms of the private sector, The New York Times reports that the panel "offered new evidence that officials at Citigroup and Merrill Lynch had portrayed mortgage-related investments to investors as being safer than they really were. It noted — Goldman’s denials to the contrary — that 'Goldman has been criticized — and sued — for selling its subprime mortgage securities to clients while simultaneously betting against those securities.'”  The bank's proprietary net short position can not be justified by simply market-making as a counter-party to its clients, Blankfein's congressional testimony notwithstanding. Relatedly, the panel also pointed to problems in executive compensation at the banks. For example, Stanley O’Neal, chief executive of Merrill Lynch, a bank which failed in the crisis, told the commission about a “dawning awareness” through September 2007 that mortgage securities had been causing disastrous losses at the firm; in spite of his incompetence, he walked away weeks later with a severance package worth $161.5 million. The panel might have gone on to point to the historically relatively huge difference between CEO and lower-level manager compensation and questioned the relative merit, but such a conclusion would go beyond the commission's mission to explain the financial crisis.

In terms of the government, The New York Times reports that the panel "showed that the Fed and the Treasury Department had been plunged into uncertainty and hesitation after Bear Stearns was sold to JPMorgan Chase in March 2008, which contributed to a series of “inconsistent” bailout-related decisions later that year." The Federal Reserve was clearly the steward of lending standards in this country,” said one commissioner, John W. Thompson, a technology executive. “They chose not to act.” Furthermore, Sabeth Siddique, a top Fed regulator, described how his 2005 warnings about the surge in “irresponsible loans” had prompted an “ideological turf war” within the Fed — and resistance from bankers who had accused him of “denying the American dream” to potential home borrowers. That is to say, the Federal Reserve, a corporation wholly owned by the U.S. Government, is too beholden to bankers instead of the common good. So we are back to the issue of a government-guaranteed corporation acting like or on behalf of private companies (and badly at that).

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/business/economy/28inquiry.html?_r=1&ref=business
Sam Jones, "Hedge Funds Rebuke Goldman," <i>Financial Times</i>, January 28, 2011, p. 18.

On greed as a culprit potentially restrained normatively (i.e, by religious ethics, for example), see: http://wordenreport.tumblr.com/post/2734313770/godliness-greed-how-effective-is-christian-ethics-in