Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Buck Stops With Obama on Tepid Financial Reform [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)17. Jesse Eisinger:
When Regulation Threatens, Bankers Predict Doom For Main Street
by Jesse Eisinger
<...>
No sooner had that issue been resolved when Washington convulsed with a new crisis, now upon us: the C.L.O. panic...The House held a hearing last week to examine the issue. American Banker, a trade publication, ran an article with a headline that succinctly summarized the industrys view: How Dodd-Frank Might Kill the C.L.O. Market.
<...>
Collateralized loan obligations, as the acronym is known, are bundles of loans, usually made to junk-rated companies. They use the same techniques as collateralized debt obligations, which were often made up of subprime mortgage investments and were the rotten core of the financial crisis. C.L.O.s caused billions in losses for banks during the market panic of 2008, but most recovered strongly and memories faded. Junk-rated companies rallied, and C.L.O.s roared back.
Under the Volcker Rule, which prevents banks from making speculative investments or owning large pieces of hedge funds or private equity firms, some C.L.O. holdings might be prohibited. Some C.L.O.s own securities or bonds, and those are considered more speculative. (In a regulatory quirk, bonds and loans get different regulatory treatments.) Some C.L.O.s give certain investors the ability to remove the manager that makes the C.L.O.s investment decisions. That could be construed as a form of ownership control, which would bar banks from participating under a strict construction of the Volcker Rule.
The banking industry has been making loud noises about how the uncertainty could have dire consequences. As with the TruPs ruckus, the big banks have defended their interests in the name of smaller and more sympathetic entities. According to the banking lobby and its friends in Congress, any threat to the C.L.O. market is actually a dagger pointed at midsize businesses, which will have trouble finding capital as a result. In written testimony to the House subcommittee, a United States Chamber of Commerce representative expressed serious concerns that the regulators had failed to take into account the impact of the Volcker Rule upon the capital formation of Main Street businesses, adding ominously that it may only be the first wave of capital formation problems that may crop up as a result of the Volcker Rule....this skirmish is largely about preserving a market for the largest banks. Just three too big to fail banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo account for 71 percent of bank C.L.O. holdings, according to Better Markets, the banking reform group. And the large banks get fees from creating the deals.
- more -
http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/when-regulation-threatens-bankers-predict-doom-for-main-street
by Jesse Eisinger
<...>
No sooner had that issue been resolved when Washington convulsed with a new crisis, now upon us: the C.L.O. panic...The House held a hearing last week to examine the issue. American Banker, a trade publication, ran an article with a headline that succinctly summarized the industrys view: How Dodd-Frank Might Kill the C.L.O. Market.
<...>
Collateralized loan obligations, as the acronym is known, are bundles of loans, usually made to junk-rated companies. They use the same techniques as collateralized debt obligations, which were often made up of subprime mortgage investments and were the rotten core of the financial crisis. C.L.O.s caused billions in losses for banks during the market panic of 2008, but most recovered strongly and memories faded. Junk-rated companies rallied, and C.L.O.s roared back.
Under the Volcker Rule, which prevents banks from making speculative investments or owning large pieces of hedge funds or private equity firms, some C.L.O. holdings might be prohibited. Some C.L.O.s own securities or bonds, and those are considered more speculative. (In a regulatory quirk, bonds and loans get different regulatory treatments.) Some C.L.O.s give certain investors the ability to remove the manager that makes the C.L.O.s investment decisions. That could be construed as a form of ownership control, which would bar banks from participating under a strict construction of the Volcker Rule.
The banking industry has been making loud noises about how the uncertainty could have dire consequences. As with the TruPs ruckus, the big banks have defended their interests in the name of smaller and more sympathetic entities. According to the banking lobby and its friends in Congress, any threat to the C.L.O. market is actually a dagger pointed at midsize businesses, which will have trouble finding capital as a result. In written testimony to the House subcommittee, a United States Chamber of Commerce representative expressed serious concerns that the regulators had failed to take into account the impact of the Volcker Rule upon the capital formation of Main Street businesses, adding ominously that it may only be the first wave of capital formation problems that may crop up as a result of the Volcker Rule....this skirmish is largely about preserving a market for the largest banks. Just three too big to fail banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo account for 71 percent of bank C.L.O. holdings, according to Better Markets, the banking reform group. And the large banks get fees from creating the deals.
- more -
http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/when-regulation-threatens-bankers-predict-doom-for-main-street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024620516
Finally, Bank Regulators Have Had Enough
by Jesse Eisinger
With their simultaneous display of hubris, remorselessness, incompetence and corruption, the banks have finally ignited a modicum of courage in banking regulators...reckless trading at a JPMorgan Chase unit in London, the rampant mortgage modification and foreclosure abuses, manipulation of the key global interest rate benchmark went just a tad too far. For the first time since the financial crisis, the banks are losing some battles on tougher regulation.
Last week, banking regulators, led by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, but including the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, proposed a rule to raise the capital at the largest, most dangerous banks.
<...>
For the bank safety rules, regulators are going to require a higher capital ratio. Basel III, the international agreement on bank rules, put the rate at $3 for every $100 in assets. The new rules would raise it to $5 for the holding company, and $6 at its banking subsidiaries.
The measure is a victory for reality-based thinking in an important respect: how banks measure their assets. Under current accounting rules, assets are disclosed so poorly that banks are allowed to keep mysterious exposures out of view. Banks own pieces of businesses that reside off the balance sheet. They also make commitments using derivatives, creating obligations that are complex and difficult to quantify. The specifics of these vulnerabilities are poorly understood by everyone, including bankers themselves, but we know for sure that they can cause implosions.
- more -
http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/finally-bank-regulators-have-had-enough
by Jesse Eisinger
With their simultaneous display of hubris, remorselessness, incompetence and corruption, the banks have finally ignited a modicum of courage in banking regulators...reckless trading at a JPMorgan Chase unit in London, the rampant mortgage modification and foreclosure abuses, manipulation of the key global interest rate benchmark went just a tad too far. For the first time since the financial crisis, the banks are losing some battles on tougher regulation.
Last week, banking regulators, led by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, but including the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, proposed a rule to raise the capital at the largest, most dangerous banks.
<...>
For the bank safety rules, regulators are going to require a higher capital ratio. Basel III, the international agreement on bank rules, put the rate at $3 for every $100 in assets. The new rules would raise it to $5 for the holding company, and $6 at its banking subsidiaries.
The measure is a victory for reality-based thinking in an important respect: how banks measure their assets. Under current accounting rules, assets are disclosed so poorly that banks are allowed to keep mysterious exposures out of view. Banks own pieces of businesses that reside off the balance sheet. They also make commitments using derivatives, creating obligations that are complex and difficult to quantify. The specifics of these vulnerabilities are poorly understood by everyone, including bankers themselves, but we know for sure that they can cause implosions.
- more -
http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/finally-bank-regulators-have-had-enough
When he isn't making comments about personalities, he's very good.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Loss of respect for John Stewart for having him on. Remember when Geithner said in Europe that
TheNutcracker
May 2014
#1
The bankster bailouts and the resulting depression are Obama's legacy. He picked Geithner. nt
Romulox
May 2014
#2
I am not good at analogies but the arsonists in the airplane was a terrible analogy.
rhett o rick
May 2014
#26