Regulators sit in judgment of CIT

While bond investors seem to have come through with a $3B private bailout for CIT Group, it appears regulators will have the final say on the troubled lender. CIT needs an exemption from the Federal Reserve and approval from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to transfer assets from a holding company to its bank in Utah. It can then raise customer deposits to fund those assets. Earlier this year the regulators allowed a transfer of $5.7 billion in student loans by CIT, but more recently they have seemed reluctant to grant additional transfers. Bondholders hope, however, that with a private-sector deal in hand, the regulators will take a second look and allow more transfers. Even though CIT's long-term plans center around the regulatory waiver, no imminent action is expected on that front, a person familiar with the matter said. For more details on the CIT situation, check out this story from the WSJ.

Battle joined on consumer financial protection agency

The Obama regulatory plan has now been percolating through the financial world for two weeks, and the reaction has been mixed. Predictably, banks and mortgage lenders are placing top priority on killing the proposal to create the so-called Financial Products Safety Commission. The banks and their lobbyists are bracing for a big fight, unhappy with the extension of powers being discussed for the new regulator. The proposal delivered to Congress calls for stripping away all the consumer responsibilities that are currently assigned to existing regulators like the Fed, FDIC and OCC. Among the powers being discussed, the new agency could set standards for traditional mortgages and could restrict or prohibit certain types of mortgages.

Links:

• The collateral damage from lawmakers releasing confidential Federal Reserve emails could be a less open regulatory process as banks and regulators may share less information with eachother.
• The Supreme Court decided with New York 5-4 in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association. The decision affirms that New York's AG could demand mortgage data from federally chartered banks to seek evidence of discrimination under the state's fair lending laws.
• Morgan Stanley pulled in its risk-taking in 2009, and it's now seeing the downside of that strategy.
• There is some grumbling about the selection process for the job of Head of the NY Fed.
• The FDIC is seeking limits on the ability of private equity firms to buy up failed banks.
• Sometimes it's better to be lucky than it is to be good....
  

Regulatory Turf Wars Gaining Steam

Lots of buzz this week about future oversight of the financial markets. While GlobalRiskJobs and GlobalComplianceJobs have been anticipating significant changes in the regulatory landscape, the political landscape has thus far provided more of a speed bump to true reform than initially thought. The Obama Administration is (finally) expected to finish up a plan to present to Congress by the end of June, but the timetable for any reform plan to be approved by Congress looks like the end of this year. The Obama administration has been pushing a more radical reform agenda, while existing regulators naturally have sought to defend their existing turf. As a result, no firm regulatory structure has yet to emerge. The primary issue seems to be whether to reorganize the basic structure of oversight, or whether to implement new rules at existing agencies that would accomplish the same end. It would seem that, given the scope of this crisis, if there was ever a time where legislators and te public would be willing to accept a radical overhaul, now would be it. The adminsitration has had its hands full with the issue of bank supervision, and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) which has come under fire for its seeming impotence in the AIG, WAMU and IndyMac fiascos is likely to be sacrificed first in the name of reform. Also on the table is a merger of the SEC and the CFTC, although House Financial Services Committe Chairman Barney Frank is not a supporter of such a move. Another political sticking point surrounds the idea of a systemic risk regulator. Treasury wants the Fed to become a financial market uber-regulator responsible for systemic risk, although many politicians and regulators are reluctant to concentrate so much power at the Fed. As mentioned last week, a new Financial Products Safety Commission has also been proposed, although Mary Schapiro naturally opposes any threat to diminish SEC power and lashed out against the idea. Another battle on the Hill is brewing between Frank and House Agriculture Committe Chairman Collin Peterson surrounding who will get authority to regulate credit default swaps. The Ag Committees in Congress traditionally oversee the CFTC and oppose any challenge to their authority.

The Links:

• The FT details some of battles being fought over bank regulation.
  
• Bloomberg's Alison Vekshin has written a good profile of FDIC Chief Sheila Bair.
• Wall Street is having its say in the battle over derivatives regulation. Banks want to preserve the intra-dealer market and raise barriers to new entrants to keep the OTC business as compartmentalized as possible.
• The FT believes regulatory authority in the US should be assigned by function, not product.
• EU banking regulators may get the power to overrule national banking authorities under new plans in the works as a response to the financial crisis.
• The WSJ comments on the derivatives PR war going on inside the Beltway.
  

The Future of "Too Big to Fail"

FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair addressed "Too Big to Fail" in front of the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs. Bair urged lawmakers to consider a government regulatory framework to monitor global, systemic financial institutions thought to be “too big to fail.” Read the testimony here.

Stress Test results are out, and BofA's apparent need for $34B in capital has been this week's worst-kept secret. banks will need to raise at least $65B in new capital The WSJ has a helpful interactive graph comparing the 19 banks that were stress-tested. Also, WSJ's David Wessel explains what the stress tests will tell us about bank health.

Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini write about a missed opportunity in the FT. The pair feel that insolvent banks should feel the wrath of the markets, asking "why keep insolvent banks afloat?" and invoke the concept of "creative destruction" first argued by Joseph Schumpeter. fellow Doom-and-Gloomer Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the current global crisis "vastly worse" than the 1930s becaause the global financial system is so interdependent now.

The GAO criticized former SEC chairman Chris Cox and his regime for creating an atmosphere in which enforcement attorneys felt thay had been weakened in their ability to take action. New SEC chair Schapiro dicontinued Cox' "Pilot Program" which had instituted a pre-approval process for investigations.

Author Richard Posner writes that we should move the spotlight off the bankers for a bit and focus on goverment officials who failed in their role of assuring economic stability.

Regulators looking North for inspiration? Marie-Josee Kravis sets the record straight on why it wasn't regulation, per se, that has spared Canada's banks from the worst of the crisis. She credits prudent management, rather than regulation, which prevented the excesses that were commonplace in the U.S. banking environment.

Don't forget to visit GlobalComplianceJobs, the place for high profile regulatory and compliance career opportunities.

Closing the regulatory gap on AIG

"If there is a single episode in this entire 18 months that has made me more angry, I can't think of one other than AIG. There was no oversight in the financial products division. This was a hedge fund basically that was attached to a large and stable insurance company"

--Ben Bernanke, 3 March 2009

"AIG is a huge, complex, global insurance company attached to a very complicated investment bank hedge fund that was allowed to build up without any adult supervision."

--Timothy Geithner, 3 March 2009

At GlobalRiskJobs we take every opportunity to consider data points and anecdotes that support the expectation of a coming explosion in risk and regulatory career opportunities in the midst of digging through the various aspects of this global financial crisis. It looks like Geithner and Bernanke are providing us with more evidence. AIG continues to be propped up by the Feds as its CDS exposure threatens the company's viability and it is quickly becoming one of the more obvious albatrosses dangling from the Obama administration's neck as it tries to plow through the crisis. Bernanke went on to say that AIG "exploited a huge gap in the regulatory system", and in a world where every remark is scrutinized for hidden meaning, Bernanke's open slap of AIG is viewed by most as evidence that regulators plan further curbs on risk and concentration in the financial services industry. So, what is the new framework going to look like? Glass Steagall redux? Or maybe a simpler plan putting a conservative Federal Reserve firmly in charge of the banks is the way this plays out. Regardless, leverage has become the boogeyman in all of this so its a solid bet that banks will get harsh new limitations on leverage and risk taking. In addition, Sheila Bair at FDIC has questioned the Basel II model on the basis that it assumes banks internal quantitative risk measures are reliable, so expect a whole new regulatory framework for the banks to be constructed.

The links:

• Who says there are no second acts in real life? Some former Countrywide managers are making money buying up residential mortgage market detritus.
• The Treasury has released guidelines for TALF and Relief for Responsible Homeowners.
• Holman Jenkins rethinks the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie in this WSJ opinion piece.
• The WSJ questions increased FDIC insurance levies against banks at a time when most are receiving Federal funds in through the other end.
• In the face of regulatory reform discussions for the credit rating agencies, S&P called for global regulatory changes to eliminate conflicts of interest and require more disclosure of rating methodologies.
• Heard on the Street says TALF turns the Fed into a generous prime brokerage.
• The FT's John Plender wrote a fine piece dissecting the carnage in the investment world.
• The bank Nationalization Debate rages on.

Bailout Weekly: AIG loses $62B and gets a 4th course at the trough

Anyone remember how much aid A.I.G. asked for way back in September? Well, we are a long, long way from September 16, 2008 when the U.S. government extended the insurance giant a two-year loan of up to $85B in exchange for a 79.9% stake. Less than a month later, those bailout loans were increased to $123B, then to $150B in November, which included a new $40B government investment. So, here we are in March 2009, and AIG is bellying up to the TARP trough for $30B in rescue funds in a reversal of the initial plan. Last fall, the government was acting as short term lender trying to help AIG get through rough times with some "tough love". It looks like Geithner has changed the parenting philosophy by relaxing loan terms and giving more access to TARP rescue funds - now standing at $70B. Yes folks, that is 40% more than Citigroup has taken so far. What does it all mean in the context of "too big to fail"? It appears that the Feds are still trying to their arms around the deep aftershocks any kind of AIG failure would have on the financial system and beyond. It's all about buying more time and keeping the newly vigilant rating agencies at bay.

More news of interest on this snowy Monday:

• Hedge fund D.E. Shaw is reacting to Madoff, et. al. by planning to step-up its due diligence by appointing 3rd party administrators to verify investments.
  
• A Treasury audit report blames an aggressive growth strategy, nontraditional loans and insufficient underwriting for the demise of IndyMac Bancorp last summer.
• The Bank Stress Test is found to be lacking in this piece by David Reilly, and the NYT questions some of the test's assuptions in this Op-Ed.
  
• FT says and FDIC on steroids might be the answer.
• Barney Frank on bailouts.
• S&P sees more losses for subprime securities.
• More on nationalization in the NY Times Magazine.
• Is the crisis spawning new regulation for the European Union?
• Bloomberg's Caroline Baum thinks some banks need to fail to clean out the system. Former Treasury Secretary James Baker writes in the FT that we need to heed the lessons learned from Japan in the 90s and kill off some zombie banks.
  

U.S. Regulators Issue Joint Statement. Markets Tank.

As reported here in yesterday's blog, US regulators took the unusual step of issuing a joint statement to ensure the investing public knows they will be stress testing banks. President Obama is looking to clear up the stench around U.S. banks by subjecting them to reviews and trying to revive liquidity in the market for their toxic assets. The Wall Street Journal thinks the joint statement bothered the equity markets. Stress testing will begin tomorrow for 20 of the largest banks to determine which ones will need government capital injections to survive. The potential downside of "opening the kimono" in this way is that bringing banks' problems into the public spotlight is that it could intensify investor concerns rather than quell them. Citigroup continues to be the big bank "guinea pig", as officials struggle with how much more aid they can or should provide the behemoth as the nationalization debate continues to rage and shareholders worry about being completely wiped out. Former FDIC Chairman William Isaac joins the chorus against nationalization in this WSJ Op-Ed piece. Isaac was responsible for nationalizing Continental Illinois Bank in the 1980s, so he knows of which he speaks. The NYT's Eric Dash reports that at least a partial nationalization seems inevitable for Citigroup. A third injection would give the U.S. 40% ownership in Citi and likely the ability to exert more influence over the bank. Across the pond, the UK's experience with RBS which has led to a 68% ownership stake in the Scottish bank is being looked upon as a sort of model. Key management has been replaced and the the government seems to be controlling lending and strategic decisions. A key question being asked in all of this is "what's the exit strategy"?

And now for the links:

• A story on regulating the Shadow Banks in breakingviews. Political momentum for regulating these entities seems to be gaining steam in advance of April's G-20 meetings in London. Thekey question will be, "what is appropriate oversight?"
  
• PIMCO's Bill Gross thinks nationalization would be a huge mistake in his latest Investment Outlook. Gross says that if you think letting Lehman fail was a mistake, just watch what nationalizing Citi and BofA would do...
  
• What exactly is nationalization? The WSJ has a helpful primer.
  
• "Black Swan" author Nassim Nicholas Taleb says that the current banking crisis will be harder to end than the Great Depression. Taleb goes so far as to say that, for him, the real "black swan" event would be for the markets to emerge unscathed and return to normalcy.
• Here's one way to manage risk: Amex is paying potential deadbeats to go away.
• Morgan Stanley is closing its Chicago prime brokerage unit.
• Geithner's "bad bank" plan may need to provide low-cost financing to distressed asset investors.
• NPR's Jim Zaroli walks us through a bank stress test.
• Is there a dangerous bubble brewing in investment grade corporate bonds? At least one analyst thinks so.
• S&P thinks proposed Basel changes will cut risk taking.
  

Regulation Monday

The regulators are back in the top of the news this morning, with two prominent articles in the NY Times Business pages. SEC chief Mary Schapiro has used her first month to move aggressively toward reversing major decisions by prior chief Cox, and to strengthen the enforcement program which has been blasted for missing several huge frauds. Cox had a policy which required enforcement lawyers to obtain consent of commissioners before moving to resolve major cases. With the commission largely made up of opponents of government regulation, the residual effect was to discourage cases and reduce penalties. Schapiro is under the gun to restore crdibility to the agency, as Congress prepares legislation which may overhaul the entire securities regulatory structure. Schapiro is moving quickly to adopt rules to minimize conflict of interest at credit-rating agencies, as well as looking at new restrictions on short selling. Schapiro's moves will be made more challenging by news of the latest collateral damage from the Cox era, as the Agency faces scrutiny for its handling of allegations of insider-trading by former Lehman executives. Sen. Grassley wants answers...

• Bank stress testing will be in the spotlight this week as the Obama administration scrutinizes the financial condition of the 20 biggest banks to assess their fitness to weather a worse downturn than expected. The U.S. said that banks would have access to capital necessary to keep them afloat. Read the joint statement from Treasury, FDIC, OCC, OTS and Federal Reserve here.
  
• More news on "Creeping Nationalization" as the Obama administration may take another step in that direction if it converts the government's preferred shares in Citigroup into common equity to help the stumbling giant withstand losses. Paul Krugman says just do it, but Gerald O'Driscoll says to beware.
  
• Phil Gramm, often pointed to as the architect of deregulation weighs in on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and what it all meant.
• From Bloomberg, word that the US and Europe are discussing joint regulation of the $28T credit default swap market.
• US regulators are being forced to sell real-estate loans of failed banks at a discount to lure buyers spooked by the likelihood of increased loan losses.
• A major CDO is bankrupt.
• Sen. Dodd tells Al Hunt short-term bank nationalization is a possibility.
• Sovereign CDS is being used to speculate on currency strength.