topleft
topright

Login or Register


Red-Hot Thread

"The corporate brand is not only used to improve competitive positioning and express company aspirations, it can also be a powerful tool to motivate employees."

CFOZone Experts

Opinions and views from expert CFOZone members.

Tag >> Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Feb 22
2011

Friday night lights out

Posted by Stephen Taub in RiskFederal Deposit Insurance Corp.FDICDealscomplianceCash

Stephen Taub

It seemingly happens every Friday evening.

Federal regulators announce that some small bank cannot continue on its own and a rival is brought in to take over the assets and continue as if nothing had happened.

Jul 06
2010

It's not such a wonderful life

Posted by Karen1 in Glass Steagall ActFederal ReserveFederal Deposit Insurance Corp.BankingAIG

Karen1
In his new book, "Jimmy Stewart is Dead: Ending the World's Ongoing Financial Plague with Limited Purpose Banking," author Laurence Kotlikoff outlines his view of the drivers behind the financial mess and then offers up a solution with limited purpose banking.
  
 To be sure, the causes behind the ongoing financial crisis that Kotlikoff identifies are similar to what many other economists, journalists and regular Joes - especially on the web -  have identified: the largest financial institutions were able to take risks that went horribly wrong, and then get Uncle Sam to cover the cost - the classic "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario. Kotlikoff spares no words in his descriptions of the financial masterminds, (if they can be called that) behind the implosion. One example: "incredibly arrogant, irrationally overconfident and loaded to the gills with testosterone."
 
Turbo-charged banking and finance CEOs aren't the only ones that Kotlikoff rakes over the coals. He also points to the lack of effective regulation, calling the Office of Thrift Supervision, for instance, "comatose." In fact, its somnolence is the reason, he says, that AIG sought it as its regulatory body.
 
Similarly, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to move further afield from their original role as intermediaries who connect borrowers and savers. Instead, they could start gambling with others' money. Moreover, a lack of transparency when it came to banks' holdings meant no one (including the bankers) really knew what was on their balance sheets, nor were they able to grasp the risks involved.
 
Kotlikoff then compares the banking industry to mutual fund companies, which have weathered the meltdown pretty much intact. The reason for the difference? The mutual fund industry stuck to what it's been doing - connecting savers with others who can invest the money they're saving. It never started making bets with its own or others' money.
 
He also acknowledges that some of the financial reforms under consideration - such as allowing the Fed and FDIC greater authority to regulate non-bank financial institutions, and closer supervision of rating agencies - are a step in the right direction. In his view, however, they don't go far enough.
 
As a more effective solution, Kotlikoff advocates a move to limited purpose banking, which restricts financial institutions to acting only as intermediaries between borrowers and lenders, and savers and investors.
 
They would operate as pass-through mutual fund companies that would neither own assets nor borrow to invest, other than what might be necessary to obtain the equipment needed to run their businesses. Banks would sell a range of mutual funds - equity, private equity, REITs, etc - all of which would be held by third-party custodians and marked to market.
 
A single government agency would rate the funds, although investors could purchase additional private ratings, if they wished. In addition, demand deposits would be held in cash mutual funds, ensuring that banks would have reserves equal to 100 percent of deposits.
 
In another shift, investment bankers would be limited to a consulting role in transactions, while traders would be essentially electronic clearing systems, without the ability to acquire either assets or liabilities for themselves.  
 
The benefits of this approach? First, it eliminates the temptation for bankers and traders to risk such large sums of money that they threaten a country's financial system. It simplifies regulation. And, it can be implemented at little cost.  
 
In fact, this sort of shift already is underway. Mutual funds now hold 34 percent of all financial assets, up from 14 percent in 1980, Kotlikoff says. So, the market already is moving in this direction - albeit slowly.
 
Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the idea is the political resources required to move in this direction. Many people, from those in the banking industry to government regulators seeking to protect their turf, have an incentive to maintain the status quo. It's hard to identify the elected officials who might be willing to take on either group in order to support ideas like those Kotlikoff describes in his book.  

We may all regret that inaction. In the book, Kotlikoff discusses Richard Fuld, former CEO of Lehman Brothers. Kotlikoff notes: "What I find interesting and alarming is his statement that, ‘What happened to Lehman Bros. could have happened to any firm on Wall Street.' If this is even half true, why would we consider maintaining the system as is?"
Jun 09
2010

The Fed once again proves to be a regulatory pushover

Posted by Ron F in Timothy GeithnerRegulationObama Administrationfinancial market reformfinancial crisisFederal ReserveFederal Deposit Insurance Corp.FedEnroncomplianceBanksbanking reformbanking industryBanking

Ron F

Anyone who thinks the Federal Reserve ought to oversee systemic risk ought to take a close look at this article.

By now, of course, it's no surprise that banks used yet another financing gimmick to make their capital look stronger than it really was. This one, involving Trust Preferred Securities known as TruPS, is doubly gimmicky, in so far as it involves both hybrid securities (i.e., a have your cake and eat it combination of debt and equity) and off-balance-sheet treatment. In terms of magnitude and significance, this stuff makes Andy Fastow look like a piker. Then again, Enron violated the letter as well as the spirit of the accounting rules. The banks were smarter than Fastow in that respect, or at least their lawyers and lobbyists were.

May 19
2010

$30 billion small bank lending bill might not help

Posted by annearf in small businessIn complianceFederal ReserveFederal Deposit Insurance Corp.community banks

annearf

Congress is considering a $30 billion bill aimed at boosting lending to small business by community and other independent banks. But, at the same time, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Federal Reserve are increasing their scrutiny of these institutions, which provide the lion's share of small-business loans. And that could dilute much of the legislation's intended effect.

The bill creates a fund specifically for small banks, with various provisions to help them lend. For example, banks with less than $1 billion in assets would be eligible to receive capital investments up to 5 percent of their risk-weighted assets. And, for dividends banks would pay the government, the cost of capital would begin at 5 percent; that would drop as banks boosted small-business lending, to a minimum of 1 percent. 

Copyright © 2009-2014 CFOZone. All rights reserved. CFOZone is a property of PSN, Inc.