Is Modern Banking Fundamentally Flawed?

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase and board member of the New York Federal Reserve (a banking regulatory body), advocates not only that financial regulation reform is not necessary, but also that deregulation is the best course for the American financial sector. Meanwhile, JP Morgan lost $2 billion in an effort to reduce risk. President Obama quickly pointed out that if one of the smartest bankers in the room can preside over such a massive loss, then a deregulated financial sector would likely present us with an unacceptably high level of risk to the entire financial system (and economy). Elizabeth Warren suggested that relying on bankers to regulate themselves would not reduce the systemic risk. The alternative would seem to be strengthening financial regulation, even though—according to Sen. Dick Durbin—“the banks own Congress.”

Perhaps the problem with systemic risk in modern banking goes deeper—beyond how it can be effectively regulated—meaning made regular in line with the public good—and, moreover, beyond what our reigning modern perspective will permit us to acknowledge, let alone see. In ecclesiastical terms historically, lending was classified as a kind of charity, specifically to the poor, as the rich presumably are not in need of lent funds (by definition). In other words, the leverage assumed by the wealthy and corporations is unnecessary. Starbucks needs the funds to build four hundred more stores in China. Wal-Mart needs additional money to buy land for new stores in major American cities. Capital from stockholders is presumably not good enough. The capped cost of leverage relative to a lack of limit on profit attracts greed to favor borrowing over raising capital through stock. The vested interests of existing stockholders (often including the executives who control their corporate boards) seals the deal on leverage as the drug of choice, even if it is not in the long-term best interests of the respective companies. Such a view of borrowing and paying (and earning) interest is worlds away from the original purpose of lending.

Viewing a loan as alms to the poor, lending with interest was originally thought to be unjust. At the very least, it was viewed as unseemly to profit in the giving of charity (although modern corporations do it all the time and get tax deductions for it, besides good public relations). Furthermore, the property (i.e., the substance of the money) lent was viewed as being inseparable from its use (i.e., as a means of exchange). The substance of money is its use, according to that view, so charging more than the money itself (i.e., the principal) is undeserved surplus. Such profit was historically reckoned as being theft. It is not good form to steal from the poor to whom one is giving alms. It is like biting someone while handing him a $20, which he needs to buy lunch (and will return later).  “Hey, I forgot my wallet today and I didn’t bring my lunch. Can you help me out? I’ll pay you back tomorrow.” If of charitable good-will, the acquaintance would reply, "Sure, here you go." If of ever greater (i.e., self-less) good-will, the lender would add, "and don't worry about paying it back." This is lending at its finest. Demanding that the borrower pay more than simply returning the $20 would represent far less than accepting the principal back. Beyond unfairness, taking interest regardless of the borrower's circumstance evinces self-idolatry.

Specifically, for a lender to receive surplus (above the principal) without labor or uncertainty (having transferred the risk to the borrower by requiring repayment) is not only unjust because it violates the risk/return relationship (i.e., a higher return is justified by assuming more risk), the certainly assumed (artifiically) by refusing to accommodate or share in any losses incurred by the borrower is rightfully only that of God. That is to say, it is self-idolatry to assume a divine quality like certainty. Furthermore, the power that some lenders presume to have over delinquent borrowers can be interpreted as an attempt to claim God's power (omnipotence) for oneself. Altogether, arrogance and the infliction of harm come from making oneself an idol (i.e., as if divine).

That which usury risks in terms of morals and self-idolatry is utterly foreign to us moderns. The original charitable purpose of lending is also lost to us in part because we are so used to our own view of lending being the default and the necessary of commercial lending in our economy. Moreover, we assume our assumptions cannot be wrong, and so we do not question whether merely charging interest is inherently unjust and a sin against God. We assume we know the purpose of lending as if it had no history.

In 1612—exactly 400 years before this writing yet late enough that commercial lending was already well-ensconced in the economy—Roger Fenton, a Puritan divine in England, opined strenuously that the sin of usury is inherently unjust. “Where we finde no iustice, what hope can there be of charitie?” Salomon puts mercy as the opposite of usury. “Wherefore vsurie may well be termed a biting . . . it eateth out the very bowels of compassion.” Usury perverts the act of charity, “turning it into an act of selflove.” Usury is against “the Canon of that Charitie which seeketh not her owne, to respect the good of others; [usury] is turned to his owne proper lucre and gaine.” (Fenton, 1612, p. 106)

Injustice does not admit of mercy manifesting as charity. We moderns are so wrapped up in our self-love that we can scarcely imagine lending as an act of compassion. The Canon of Charity to which Fenton refers is the Golden Rule, whose equity guides the Calvinist view of justice as love and benevolence to all. Such benevolence is fueled by selfless love (agape), rather than higher self-love (caritas) directed to God. We moderns can scarcely recognize this theory of justice, so used are we to strict legal justice which limits one’s duty to paying for one’s crime. That the other theory of justice might be applicable to lending is apt to strike us as odd at best.

Nevertheless, the problem behind even the best bankers of today being reckless even as they advocate for deregulation may extend beyond the antiquated debate on regulation to include the making of something borne of something natural (compassion) into something artificial. That lending was designed to be a species of charity may mean that problems are necessarily entailed in using banking for leverage.

By analogy, a person might have been brought up one way and therefore have considerable trouble in adjusting to a way of life that is at odds with that upbringing. The problem facing the person would go beyond simply regulating the new life because a basic inconsistency is in such a drastic change. Were the person to know only the new life, having forgotten one’s upbringing, she would have no clue as to why she feels fundamentally ill at ease. She would look for things in her new life to assuage the difficulties, which nonetheless transcend that environment and therefore require a more basic solution.

Besides relying too much on debt for personal and business use, we as a society are cut off from the original (i.e., designed) use of lending as a means of mercy rather than to profit. Perhaps our perspective is more limited than we think, and the problem much deeper than we realize. Given that “cloudie conceits do hang in the braines of men, which cast a dye and tincture vpon the vnderstanding,” seeing usury “so much practiced of all sorts . . . men are euen thereby without further examination much moued to thinke it lawfull.” (Fenton, pp. 108-9). Yet further examination demonstrates just how limited our tiny window in modernity is—even in spite of our lauded technological development. Our “advancement,” in other words, may blind us to being so wrong about lending even as it is ubiquitous in our world.

By 2012, for example, $1 trillion in student loan debt had accumulated in the United States. Rather than the mercy of charity in waiving interest and even the principal in particular cases of dire need, such a load on poor students represented the hubris of a society run amuck on its own conceit and greed. Such a disparity exists between such selfishness and charity that the notion of debt forgiveness even for the poor is thought of as an unforgivable unfairness rather than as charitable equity that is essentially agape seu benevolentia universalis.

Source:

Fenton, Roger, A Treatise of Usurie (London, 1612). In The Usury Debate in the Seventeenth Century: Three Arguments (New York: Arno, 1972).

Lehman's Dick Fuld as the Antagonist in the film, "Too Big to Fail"

The reporter-author of Too Big to Fail, Andrew Ross Sorkin, expressed the following fear as his 600-plus-page book was being made into a movie: "I went into the process I think worried – as I imagine most writers would be – that it would be sexed up and hollywoodized in some other way." To be sure, putting the Dick Fuld (CEO of Lehman Brothers) character into any sort of sex scene would have been counterproductive at best.

As it was, the director of the tv-movie based on Sorkin’s book let the drama inherent in the historical events to lead the narrative. The only quibble I may have with the historical veracity has to do with Bart McDade replacing Joe Gregory as President of Lehman. According to Larry McDonald, a former distressed-bonds trader at Lehman, the replacement also relegated Fuld even as he remained as CEO only to quell the markets. Specifically, on June 11, 2008, “Fuld was effectively deposed,” according to McDonald, “by Bart McDade with the support of the executive committee” (McDonald, p. 297). In the movie, however, Fuld was still in charge even in September of that year, with McDade still bowing to him in front of the Koreans.

While it could be that Sorkin and McDonald have different sources of information on whether there was a coup within Lehman, the film’s director and screenwriter could have kept Fuld in charge to maintain the character as the principal antagonist. Even so, McDonald’s description of McDade confronting Fuld in Fuld’s office and the subsequent decision of Gregory in the conference room to take the stunned CFO, Erin Callan, down with him in front of the executive committee would have made excellent scenes in the movie.

The other change I would have made to the screenplay would give the viewers an improved insight into how the sub-prime crisis could have been allowed to get so bad. Specifically, the Fuld character could have had a flashback to Mike Gelband’s warning on June 7, 2005 in defiance of Fuld that Lehman should get out of the housing-related CDO market; the bank was then leveraged twenty-two times its net worth (McDonald, p. 136). Meeting with Gelband and other senior executives on the 31^st floor on that day, Fuld and his allies insinuated that Gelband had some kind of attitude problem that needed to be changed “real fast” (McDonald, p. 138).  As a flashback, this scene would have shown the viewer Fuld’s recklessness in terms of risk (and leverage), and thus how the financial system could have been put in such peril by the “experts”. In fact, in the spring of 2007 Fuld decided to bully and belittle Gelband publically at the bank in order to get him to take on even more risk (McDonald, p. 235). This could have been fused into the “attitude problem” meeting, showing the viewer Fuld’s pathology, which goes beyond a bad temper.

Whether one points to Jim Cayne at Bear Stearns or Dick Fuld at Lehman, the role of pathology in the near-demise of Wall Street could uncover for us how recklessness could have gained such traction. In other words, HBO’s Too Big to Fail could have delved into Fuld’s character beyond having him drop some F-bombs. Speaking on Charlie Rose on the evening of the movie’s premiere, Sorkin marveled that it must be difficult for actors to convey their respective characters in just a few scenes. That is true; however, the director and screenwriter could have brought out Fuld’s pathology (beyond his anger) by a few well-chosen additional scenes. Sometimes what a character says, and to whom, can be more damning than how loud he or she says it. Concerning Fuld, the viewers could have been shaking their heads in utter disbelief rather than simply concluding that the guy is arrogant and has a temper.

See related essay: "Leadership at Lehman: On the Failure of Richard Fuld"

Sources:

Kamelia Angelova, “Andrew Ross Sorkin: I was Worried that ‘Too Big to Fail’ Will Be Sexed Up or Hollywoodized as a Movie,” Business Insider, May 24, 2011.

Lawrence McDonald, Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers (New York: Three River Press, 2009).

Weening Businesses off Debt: A Difficult Recovery?

We might view the recovery from the financial crisis of 2008 as a systemic correction in which managers were weened off their reliance (i.e., addition) on debt. Of course, the key lies in holding to the correction rather than falling off the wagon. Perhaps there should be an AA for debt-ridden businesses.

The near credit-freeze that came to a head in September of 2008 meant that even in the ensuing recovery, managers at American companies would be hesitant to spend their companies’ cash reserves. $838 billion for S & P’s 500 Index in March, 2010, was up 26% from March, 2009. Accordingly, managers have been hesitant to hire. From late 2007 to late 2009, payroll employment dropped by nearly 8.4 million by July, 2010; only 11% of the lost jobs were regained.[1] 

Robert Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University, points to the shift in executive compensation more in the direction of stock options. This arrangement gives managers more incentive to cut costs more in recessions and hold off in hiring in recoveries so that profits might surge first. However, one could point to the mandatory delay stipulated in some executive’s options to buy stock as giving them an incentive to look to the longer term.  Lynn Reaser, another economist, points to the lack of available external credit even more than a year after the financial crisis of 2008. She argues that managers conserved cash because they couldn’t rely on outside financing. 

However, firms like Apple, Yahoo, and Google are debtless and doing very well, so I would question the premise that outside credit is something to be desired.  Managers betting on leverage typically allow their irrational exuberance to distort their debt-to-assets and debt-to-profit benchmarks. If managers have become more averse to debt, maintaining higher cash reserves is not a bad thing, even when little interest is made on the cash. Once the new level is achieved, then only replenishments would be needed, so the diminishment of a firm’s investing in equipment or new hires would be temporary—to build the reserves and then to keep them stocked.  Drawing on their firm’s cash reserves rather than asking a bank for a loan or selling bonds proffers more freedom and self-reliance—qualities that are valuable even though they are difficult to quantify.  

1. Robert J. Samuelson, “The Big Hiring-Freeze,” Newsweek (August 2, 2010), p. 26.