Posts Tagged ‘Dodd-Frank bill’

JP Morgan Chase’s $2 Billion Loss Under Investigation

Monday, May 21st, 2012

As the Department of Justice and the FBI open their investigation into how JP Morgan Chase lost $2 billion, the government is investigating to determine if any criminal wrongdoing occurred.  The inquiry is in the preliminary stages.  Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates derivatives trading, are also looking into JPMorgan’s trading activities.  JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said that the bank made “egregious” mistakes and that the losses tied to synthetic credit securities were “self-inflicted.”

The probe is perceived as necessary, given the ongoing debate about bank regulation and reform, and one expert said it raised the level of concern around what happened.  “The FBI looks for evidence of crimes and goes after people who it alleges are criminals.  They want to send people to jail.  The SEC pursues all sorts of wrongdoing, imposes fines and is half as scary as the FBI,” said Erik Gordon, a professor in the law and business schools at the University of Michigan.

According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the trading loss “helps make the case” for tougher rules on financial institutions, as regulators implement the Dodd-Frank law aimed at reining in Wall Street.  Geithner said the Federal Reserve, the SEC and the Obama administration are “going to take a very careful look” at the JPMorgan incident as they implement new regulations like the “Volcker Rule,” which bans banks from making bets with customers’ money.  “The Fed and the SEC and the other regulators — and we’ll be part of this process — are going to take a very careful look at this incident and make sure that we review the implications of what that means for the design of these remaining rules,” Geithner said.  Under review will be “not just the Volker Rule, which is important in this context, but the broader set of safeguards and reforms,” Geithner said, noting that regulators will also scrutinize capital requirements, limits on leverage and derivatives markets reforms.  “I’m very confident that we’re going to be able to make sure those come out as tough and effective as they need to be,” Geithner said.  “And I think this episode helps make the case, frankly.”

Geithner said that Dodd-Frank wasn’t intended “to prevent the unpreventable in terms of mistakes in judgment, but to make sure when those mistakes happen — and they’re inevitable — that they’re modest enough in size, and the system as a whole can handle them.”  The loss “points out how important it is that these reforms are strong enough and effective enough,” he said.

With the passage of Dodd-Frank, banks are required to hold more capital, reduce their leverage and assure better cushions across the financial system to accommodate losses.  Geithner’s comments are similar to those made by other White House officials, who have avoided blasting the bank for its bad judgment, and instead used the event to bolster the case for the financial overhaul.

“We are aware of the matter and are looking into it,” a Justice Department official said “This is a preliminary look at what if anything might have taken place.”  The inquiry by the FBI’s financial crimes squad is in a “preliminary infancy stage,” the official said, and federal law enforcement agents are pursuing the matter “because of the company and the dollar amounts involved here.”

JPMorgan’s and the financial system’s ability to survive a loss that large showed that reforms put in place after the 2008 financial crisis have succeeded.  Nevertheless, the loss by the nation’s largest bank highlights the need for tough implementation of the Volcker Rule on proprietary trading and other rules that regulators are still finalizing.  “The whole point was, even if you’re smart, you can make mistakes, and since these banks are insured backed up by taxpayers, we don’t want you taking risks where eventually we might end up having to bail you out again, because we’ve done that, been there, didn’t like it,” according to President Obama.

Mark A. Calabria, Director of Financial Regulation Studies for the Cato Institute, takes a contrarian view.  Writing in the Huffington Post, Calabria says that “Unsurprisingly, President Obama and others have used the recent $2 billion loss by JPMorgan Chase as a call for more regulation. Obviously, our existing regulations have worked so well that more can only be better!  What the president and his allies miss is that recent events at JPMorgan illustrate how the system should — and does — work.  The losses at JPMorgan were borne not by the American taxpayer, but by JPMorgan.  The losses also appear to have been offset by gains so that in the last quarter JPMorgan still turned a profit.  This is the way the system should work.  Those who take the risk, take the loss (or gain).  It is a far better alignment of incentives than allowing Washington to gamble trillions, leaving someone else holding the bag.  The losses at JPMorgan have also resulted in the quick dismissal of the responsible employees.  Show me the list of regulators who lost their jobs, despite the massive regulatory failures that occurred before and during the crisis.

According to Calabria, “President Obama has warned that ‘you could have a bank that isn’t as strong, isn’t as profitable making those same bets and we might have had to step in.’  Had to step in?  What the recent JPMorgan losses actually prove is that a major investment bank can take billions of losses, and the financial system continues to function even without an injection of taxpayer dollars.  It is no accident that many of those now advocating more regulation are the same people who advocated the bailouts.  Banks need to be allowed to take losses.  The president also sets up a ridiculous standard of error-free financial markets.  All human institutions, including banks and even the White House, are characterized by error and mistake.  Zero mistakes is an unattainable goal in any system in which human beings are involved.  What we need is not a system free of errors, but one that is robust enough to withstand them.  And the truth is that the more small errors we have, the fewer big errors we will have.  I am far more concerned over long periods of calm and profit than I am with periods of loss.  The recent JPMorgan losses remind market participants that risk is omnipresent.  It encourages due diligence on the part of investors and other market participants, something that was sorely lacking before the crisis.”

Consumer Watchdog to Keep Eye on Debt Collectors, Credit Reporting Agencies

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

Debt collectors and credit reporting agencies — businesses that impact thousands of consumers — would face federal supervision for the first time under a rule a new federal watchdog proposal, which would allow the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to examine approximately 200 firms, including large debt collectors.

According to the proposal, these two segments of the consumer finance industry will be a high priority for the CFPB as it scrutinizes the inner-workings of banks, as well as thousands of firms that offer a wide-range of financial services.  The bureau is planning to police payday lenders as well as non-bank firms that offer home and student loans.  Congress created the agency through the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial bill to control misleading financial practices and  examine segments of the financial marketplace that had previously escaped federal scrutiny.

“This oversight would help restore confidence that the federal government is standing beside the American consumer,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray.  The number of Americans with debt under collection has grown to about 30 million Americans over the past 10 years, according to the New York Federal Reserve.  The average amount under collection has also steadily grown over the years to $1,400.  According to the CFPB, the market is dominated by firms that collect debt owned by another company in return for a fee; firms that purchase debt and collect the proceeds for themselves; and debt collection attorneys and law firms that litigate to collect.

“Our proposed rule would mean that those debt collectors and credit reporting agencies that qualify as larger participants are subject to the same supervision process that we apply to the banks,” Cordray said.

Considering that there are so many consumers struggling with unemployment and debt, Cordray said that more Americans are indebted to debt collectors and credit reporting companies, which employers frequently consult prior to hiring.  Cordray said that employers’ use of credit reports in hiring decisions “may not always be fair for consumers, but it reflects the reach and scope and importance of the consumer reporting field.”  That explains why the bureau wants to target those who gather and analyze consumer financial data, as well as those who are tasked with collecting on unpaid bills.  The consumer bureau will soon announce what other kinds of non-banking financial firms it plans to scrutinize in coming months, Cordray said.

The process of examining records and collecting data from these firms can lead to enforcement if regulators find violations of the law.  In these cases, the consumer bureau could find breaches of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Under the proposal, debt collectors with more than $10 million in yearly receipts from collection will undergo supervision by the consumer bureau.  This threshold would cover nearly 175 debt collection companies — four percent of all such companies — that collectively account for 63 percent of the industry’s annual revenue.

Cordray said the goal is to hold these companies to the same oversight as banks. “This oversight would help restore confidence that the federal government is standing beside the American consumer.”  Cordray continued, “The supervision tool is a very powerful tool. It’s a very powerful way for us to secure compliance with the law. It’s an authority I wish I had had in previous positions.”  He stressed that smaller companies in the two industries are still required to follow consumer protection laws and could be subject to CFPB regulation. But under the proposed rule, the CFPB would gain “complete access” to the books and information of large companies to ensure they are following those requirements, and will devote individual attention to each.

According to Dodd-Frank, the rule must be finalized by July 21, one year after the agency opened its doors.

Dodd-Frank Bill Collides Head On With Deficit Realities

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

Implementation of the historic Dodd-Frank bill – which President Barack Obama signed into law last July to regulate Wall Street against the excesses that led to the Great Recession — is in danger of being gutted if Republicans’ proposed deep spending cuts become a reality.  Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) pointedly criticized Republicans’ proposal to slash government spending to 2008 levels. According to Frank, that is not an option because the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) need funding to hire hundreds of employees to write and issue regulations to give the new law teeth.  Frank co-sponsored the bill with former Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT).

Unfortunately, the positive things that Dodd-Frank was designed to accomplish have run head on into the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) bleak warning about the direction of the nation’s debt.  According to NPR  Planet Money correspondent David Welna, “It was not a pretty picture that CBO director Douglas Elmendorf painted as he sat before the budget committee”. This year’s deficit, he said, will be nearly $1.5 trillion dollars, nominally the largest in history.  And if the tax breaks that got extended this year continue throughout the next decade, Elmendorf said the nation’s debt would grow to be the size of its economy, something that hasn’t happened since the end of World War II.  The time to do something about it, he told the grim-faced panel of senators, is now.”

Elmendorf warned that “The longer the necessary adjustments are delayed, the greater will be the negative consequences of the mounting debt, the more uncertain individuals and businesses will be about the future government policies, and the more drastic the ultimate policy changes will need to be.”  Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said “The thing that makes the most sense is there is a summit between the White House, leaders in the House and the Senate, because at the end of the day, the White House has got to be at the table. And unfortunately, during the budget process, the president is left out.”  NPR’s Welna continues, “The revenue side of the equation, of course, is taxes and raising them has been a taboo topic for most in the GOP.  But the likely need for more revenues was underscored toward the end of today’s hearing when Conrad noted that the Social Security surplus that lawmakers have been raiding for years disappeared this year and instead, Social Security has started cashing in its IOUs with the Treasury.”  Social Security will post nearly $600 billion in deficits over the next 10 years as the economy recovers and millions of baby boomers begin retiring, according to new congressional projections.

House Republicans, led by Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ), chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, wants to cut $55 to $60 billion in non-defense spending during fiscal year 2011.  “A dramatic spending increase to fund the SEC and CFTC, as envisioned by the authors of the Dodd-Frank legislation, would further the mindset that our nation’s problems can be solved with more spending, not more efficiency,” according to Garrett.  Frank countered that Garrett’s comments only reinforce his “fear that Republicans are attempting to cripple regulation by failing to fund it.  I had thought even among people in the Tea Party that credit default swaps were not that popular.  We’re arguing the security of the average American was far more endangered by the financial crisis than by a lot of other things that our military does.”

If the cuts are put into place, the SEC and CFTC would be frustrated in their mandates, such as setting up a new office of municipal securities, according to Frank.  The Republican response to Democratic concerns is that their goal is to make federal regulators more efficient.  Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said “Past experience indicates that a few investigative reporters have been more effective than the many employees at the SEC in addressing and exposing financial wrongdoing.”

Federal Reserve Comes Clean on Who Received Bailout Money

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

Federal Reserve Comes Clean on Who Received Bailout MoneyAt the instruction of Congress, the Federal Reserve has released the names of the approximately 21,000 recipients of $3.3 trillion in aid provided during the financial meltdown –without doubt the nation’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Not surprisingly, two of the top beneficiaries were Bank of America and Wells Fargo, who received approximately $45 billion each from the Term Auction Facility.  American units of the Swiss bank UBS, the French bank Societe Generale and German bank Dresdner Bank AG also received financial assistance.  The Fed posted the information on its website in compliance with a provision of the Dodd-Frank bill that imposed strict new financial regulations on Wall Street.

One of the biggest surprises on the list is the fact that General Electric accessed a Fed program no fewer than 12 times for a total of $16 billion.  Although the Fed originally objected, Congress demanded accountability because there was evidence that the central bank had gone beyond their usual role of supporting banks.  In addition, the Fed purchased short-term IOUs from corporations, risky assets from Bear Stearns and more than $1 trillion in housing debt.

Reactions to the revelations are both positive and negative.  On the positive side, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker said “We owe an accounting to the American people of who we have lent money to.  It is a good step toward broader transparency.”  Sarah Binder, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, disagrees, noting that “These disclosures come at a politically opportune time for the Fed.  Just when Chairman Bernanke is trying to defend the Fed from Republican critics of its asset purchases, the Fed’s wounds from the financial crisis are reopened.”

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) said “We see this (list) not as the end of a process but really a significant step forward in opening the veil of secrecy that exists in one of the most powerful agencies in government.  Given the size of these commitments, it is incomprehensible that the American people have not received specific details about them.”