Too Big To Fail: The U.S. Is Still at Risk

On March 20, 2013, more than two years after the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation had become law, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke made it clear that the problem of too-big-to-fail banks had not been solved. “Too Big To Fail is not solved and gone,” he said in a press conference. “It’s still here.”[1] That is, providing an orderly liquidation process for bankrupt banks would be insufficient in keeping the U.S. economy free of vulnerability from even one of the biggest banks taking down the financial sector merely by going bankrupt. Congress should not have missed or minimized this point while working on the Dodd-Frank Act. The self-interested power of Wall Street in Washington and the need of campaign funds in Congress coalesced to dilute the law in spite of the detriment to the public good.

Suggesting that more legislation might be needed, Bernanke said, “Too Big To Fail was a major source of the crisis . . . and we will not have successfully responded to the crisis if we do not address that successfully.”[2] More would be needed to rid the U.S. economy of the threat of banks too big to fail. If holding more capital does not make the big banks safer, “we will have to take additional steps.” This, he said, “is important.” Yet somehow his voice was not adequately heard. Other voices were louder on Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, Wall Street banks faced little downside. Because the mammoth size of big banks such as Citibank and Bank of America makes their failure a threat to the viability of the financial system and even the overall economy, such size is an advantage to the banks because the bankers can reasonably bet that the U.S. Government would have to bail them out even if they face financial ruin by having taken on too much risk as the economy sours. The sense of invincibility, plus lower borrowing costs, could lead big banks to not only stay big (or even get larger!), but also take bigger risks. Bankers at such banks may even feel free to commit fraud because U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted in 2013 that large banks were nearly immune from government prosecution for crimes, given the risks to the economy from the failure of a convicted bank. What about the fraudulent bankers who sold "crap" while claiming the mortgage-based bonds were sturdy? In short, the risk taken on by a big bank could easily outstrip even the additional capital requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act.

Even apart from reckless banking at the top of the U.S. financial system, if a sizable market in the U.S., such as many of the housing markets, were to collapse all at once, as in 2007-2008, many banks would be hit. The additional reserves would not likely buttress individual banks from the domino effect that was evinced, albeit halted, in September 2008. I submit that more money in reserves would have stopped the cascading momentum. While higher reserves might safeguard a bank while others are intact, the claim seems doubtful at best when the undercurrent from the momentum of many banks being hit at once or in a row is strong. It is no accident, I contend, that the Obama campaign of 2008 accepted $1 million from Goldman Sachs. 

1. Mark Gongloff, “Ben Bernanke: ‘I Agree With ElizabethWarren100 Percent’ On Too Big To Fail,” The Huffington Post, March 20, 2013.
2. Ibid.

Behind Corporate Loopholes: Wealth and Power

A company in the U.S. wants a tax loophole to apply. Starbucks, for example, wanted to be able to use the manufacturing deduction by stretching manufacturing to include the roasting of coffee beans. So in 2004 the company hired Michael Evans, a lobbyist at K&L Gates who had just a year before worked as a top lawyer on the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which writes tax law. Evans was able to urge his former colleagues in the Senate to expand the definition of manufacturing to include roasting in a clause added to a 243-page tax bill called the American Jobs Creation Act.  As you might imagine, Starbucks was not the only company to get a tax break written into that law. By 2013, the manufacturing deduction had saved Starbucks $88 million that the company would otherwise have had to pay in corporate income tax. In 2012, corporate tax breaks and loopholes added $150 billion in lost revenue for the federal government, increasing the budget deficit by that amount.[1] Three lessons can be gleamed from the hidden corporate loopholes. 

First, the damage done to the U.S. debt by corporate loopholes has been significant. While dwarfed by the debt incurred to finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ($2.4 trillion added to the debt by 2013), $150 billion of lost revenue from corporate tax benefits for that period alone is nonetheless significant. 

Second, the “insider influence” itself violates the principles of openness and fairness, which are so esteemed in a democracy. The many points of access to influence legislation can be abused by legislators and lobbyists alike by their stealth dealings, sometimes literally in the middle of the night as a bill is about to be voted on. Ideally, the many points of access refers to the fact that various groups (and citizens) can reach legislators, not that the most powerful interests can abuse their ability to contact lawmakers for private gain (both to the interests and the lawmakers, thanks to political campaign contributions). In fact, for a lobbyist, including a corporate lobbyist, to have disproportionate influence on a bill to make it financially beneficial to the lobbyist's clients can be reckoned as a conflict of interest because even the information supplied is apt to be biased. The many points of access is meant to dilute the influence of the private interests that stand to benefit most from loopholes. 

Third, the contacts that lobbyists have in government from having worked there themselves can play a major role in the loopholes being granted and even in secret. Other self-interested interests cannot check the self-interested influence of the companies or industries that would gain most, so the private benefit gets away with eclipsing the public good. A law prohibiting former legislators and Congressional staffers from lobbying for at least ten years might make a dent in the inordinate insider influence of corporations in Congress. However, the influence of a Speaker of the House such as John Boehner, who became a corporate lobbyist after resigning from Congress, would hardly be diminished in his private influence, and thus earnings. Information that only insiders have sells. 

Like water, pent-up power naturally seeks its way around an obstruction with the objective of reaching an objective. The influence of wealth inexorably finds its way into the halls of power, especially in democracies as they have many points of access. This vulnerability is particularly great in cases in which candidates for public office must raise large sums of money to get elected. Asking the candidates to look the other way when a big donor is knocking at the door runs against human nature; even if laws prevent large donations, power finds its own way in the dark. The power both of candidates/lawmakers and corporations can be so massive that space itself bends toward mutual objectives. Perhaps the question is whether trying to bend space back only slightly is worth the time and energy of passing a law. Although removing the financial need of candidates for campaign funds (e.g., by public funding of advertising) could in theory take out part of the incentives on one side of the equation, corporations could tempt the incentive for private gain in other ways, such as with the promise of a lucrative job afterwards. 

In the end, the threat to the democracy is the inordinate power from the concentration of private wealth as in large corporations. The citizens are hardly focused in their collective use of their power, so the insiders in government tend to be influenced inordinately by the moneyed interest at the expense of the public good, the good of the whole.  

1 Ben Hallman and Chris Kirkham, “As Obama Confronts Corporate Tax Reform, Past Lessons Suggest Lobbyists Will Fight For Loopholes,” The Huffington Post, February 15, 2013.

See Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon. Conflicts within the U.S. Government, in business, and between business and government are explored, as well as the very nature of an institutional conflict of interest. 

Regulating Wall Street after a Financial Crisis

On Columbus Day 2011, The New York Times observed that the regulations known as the Volcker rule, “intended to limit trading when the bank's money is at risk, a sweet spot for banks, is seen as a centerpiece of the sprawling financial overhaul of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. In anticipation, the nation's biggest banks, like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have already shut down their stand-alone proprietary trading desks.”[1] Even so, the long and tortuous route by which any regulation is written was leaving its own mark in the sense that promising loopholes were finding their way into the rule. In other words, the regulated would have a disproportionate influence on the writing of the regulations. This conflict of interest is dangerous from the standpoint of not being vulnerable to another financial crisis in which the greed on Wall Street knows no bounds. 

Regulators were leaving room for “significant changes,” according to the Times. Wall Street was “lobbying furiously to tame the Volcker Rule, holding roughly 40 meetings with various regulators, warning that the changes will eat into profits at a difficult time for banks.” Those banks were undoubtedly threatening to charge more to their customers if the rule weren’t weakened. “In essence, the [rule] would upend the banking industry's lucrative, yet risky trading system, forcing powerhouse investment banks to resemble sleepier brokerage firms.” It is difficult to see Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs readily becoming mere market-makers and deposit and loan banks without a fight. To be sure, Lloyd Blankfein did insist that his bank was only a market maker when he testified before Sen. Levin’s Senate committee after the credit freeze of 2008.

At the time the Volcker Rule was being proposed, it was already apparent that there would be some wiggle-room for the banks. "Unfortunately, this initial proposal does not deliver on the promise of the Volcker Rule or the requirements of the statute," said Marcus Stanley, policy director of American for Financial Reform, an advocacy group. In the proposal, “a number of controversial exemptions emerged. While the regulation prevents big banks from placing bets on many stocks, corporate bonds and derivatives, it exempts trading in government bonds and foreign currencies. The proposal also provided a path for getting around the ban, for instance, when banks hedge against risk that comes from carrying out a customer's trade. Market-making and underwriting are excused, too, though the line is often fuzzy between these pure client activities and proprietary bets.” Lastly, the proposal would allow “banks to hedge against theoretical or ‘anticipatory’ risk, rather than just clear-and-present problems.” Armed with their lawyers and astute financial wizards, Wall Street banks could conceivably continue with business as usual.

Trading in government bonds and foreign currencies, and hedging even theoretical risk presumably with anything constitute an obstacle course that any Wall Street banker could run without breaking a sweat. With so much on the line and public scrutiny less potent at the regulatory stage, the financial-sector lobbyists could be expected to achieve just enough and then some. Once again, systemic risk would not be a factor, and history could repeat itself.

See: Skip Worden, Institutional Conflicts of Interests, available at Amazon.

1. Ben Protess, “Banking Industry Revamp Moves Step Closer to Law,” The New York Times, October 12, 2011. 

Morgan Stanley: Systemic Mistrust or Bad Financials after the Financial Crisis?

"Morgan Stanley by any measure is a safe and solid investment bank. Except for one: The amount of trust people have in the whole financial and political system. It's just about zero,” according to Jesse Eisinger of The New York Times in October 2011. Even as there is undoubtedly an element of hyperbole in his conclusion—for zero trust in the financial system and governments would occasion far greater problems than the world faced at the time of Eisinger’s report—his broader point that bankers would be held accountable one way or the other for not having learned their lesson on derivatives (and risk more generally) is valid. The subtext is that even though banks like Morgan Stanley were in actuality in solid financial shape, they deserved the negative repercussions from the systemic skepticism that the banks themselves brought about by virtually ignoring risk analysis in preference to a run of profits and (not coincidentally) bonuses.

Eisinger points out that, at least as of October 2011, Morgan Stanley “has almost $60 billion in common equity, compared with $36 billion before September 2008, and its ratios are stronger. Its trading book - which is volatile and where any bank can take sudden, large losses - is smaller than it was. Morgan Stanley has more long-term debt and higher deposits, both of which stabilize its finances. The bank has more cash available in case there's a crunch and a smaller amount of Level III assets, which don't have an independently verifiable value and so must be estimated by the bank. Hedge funds have parked a smaller amount of assets at Morgan Stanley. That's good because in the financial crisis, they pulled them from the bank.” But because all of this could be easily wiped out by a run on the bank occasioned or fueled by a wider mistrust of the financial sector, Eisinger brings up the topic of derivatives as a way of showing that the bankers did not in fact learn their lesson (i.e., all the improved stats may be for naught). Accordingly, the bankers deserved the systemic mistrust even at the expense of any effort having resulted in added financial strength.  

According to the reporter, Morgan Stanley had a face value of $56 trillion in derivatives in October 2011. He notes that JP Morgan Chase had more: a face value of $79 trillion. This is the GNP of some countries. Even though the bankers insisted at the time that they had adequately hedged their long positions, the hedges themselves could fail, especially if the derivatives are positively correlated, as in September 2008 when AIG was completely overwhelmed due to the housing-based derivatives caving in virtually all at once.

In other words, those of us capable of learning lessons know that we should not trust hedges in so far as systemic risk is concerned; the system itself can be overwhelmed by the sheer momentum of a really big wave. So we are back to the issue of trust in the entire financial system, which is and ought to be a drag on even stellar financials until the broader lesson is learned. Unfortunately, that lesson may not be in the immediate financial interest of particular banks due to externalities occasioned by moral hazard (e.g., the possibility of being rescued while another bank, such as Lehman, fails).

Even though governments can step in to protect the broader system (unless captured by the regulated), legislators and regulators cannot force bankers to learn their lesson. A mentality to safeguard even one’s own bank as a going concern cannot be imposed; it must be felt and valued from the inside. All too often, bankers are engaged in “managing” regulations as impediments to be minimized rather than stepping back to ask why the regulations exist in the first place. They might exist for the banks’ own good. If so, the banking lobby trying to water down the Volcker Rule might have been working at odds with those institutions that the lobby ostensibly represents. Be careful what you wish for, Wall Street bankers. You might just get it, especially if you have the gold and therefore can make the rules. It would be ironic if the protesters rather than yourselves had your back, even as you ridicule the masses marching below your towering be-windowed edifices of greed.

Source:

Jesse Eisinger, “Between the Lines, Wall St. Banks Face a Deficit of Trust,” The New York Times, October 12, 2011.