January 15, 2025

Fed Plans New Stress Tests for Biggest Banks

Now in their second year, the reviews have quickly become an important tool to help regulators assess the condition of the banks and restore confidence in the financial system. They also have divided the industry between the strongest banks, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which were permitted to start increasing their dividends and repurchase billions of dollars’ worth of shares this spring, and weaker institutions, like Bank of America, whose requests were denied.

The latest round of tests will give those banks another chance to convince regulators that they have regained their footing and can weather a range of unexpected financial shocks. Banks will have to complete the exams and make any requests to return capital to shareholders by Jan. 9. The Fed is expected to announce its decisions on those plans by early March.

This time, a few new twists are planned.

Unlike the previous exams, which focused on financial conditions in the United States, the new tests will require several of the big Wall Street banks to assess the potential effect of a sudden downturn on European bank loans and sovereign debt. And in an attempt to provide investors with more information, the Fed will publish its revenue and loss estimates for each of the large banks it reviews.

The Fed will also expand the scope of the exams to 31 large banks, up from the 19 biggest.

Despite the fragile economy, federal regulators have been relatively sanguine about the recovery of the nation’s banks, emphasizing that they have far more capital and cash on hand than they did in the months before the financial crisis in 2008.

On Tuesday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provided fresh evidence that the banking industry was working slowly through its problems when it released its report on third-quarter results. Profits for the nation’s 7,436 lenders rose nearly 50 percent, to $35.3 billion, compared with the period a year ago, while the number of banks at risk of failure shrank for the second consecutive quarter. In the third quarter, regulators closed 25 banks and added only a few new ones to the at-risk list. The list of so-called problem banks stands at 844, down from 865 at the end of June.

With fewer attractive places to lend or invest, banks have been stockpiling billions of dollars of excess profits. In fact, retained earnings in the third quarter reached their highest level since the height of the boom in 2006. That may give banks a freer hand to return capital to shareholders than they had in 2010, when regulators took a relatively tough stance.

Under the guidelines released Tuesday, the Federal Reserve will again evaluate the ability of the 19 largest banks to withstand losses under a set of adverse economic conditions over the next two years. Among the hypothetical situations are ones in which unemployment rises at the average rate of the last several recessions, domestic and global economic output contracts significantly, and stock and bond prices plunge starting in the fourth quarter of 2011. Six of the 19 banks with large trading operations will be required to estimate potential losses from their exposure to European debt.

Fed officials, in turn, will assess the banks’ internal capital management and any plans to increase stock dividends or buy back additional shares. The banks must show that they are strong enough to meet the new capital requirements from international accords and cope with worse-than-expected legal settlements tied to the mortgage and foreclosure mess.

The official stress tests will evaluate the condition of the 19 biggest banks, which have assets of at least $100 billion. Those include Wall Street giants like Citigroup and Morgan Stanley as well as large regional banks like PNC Financial and U.S. Bancorp. Banks owned by MetLife, the insurer, and Ally Financial, the consumer lender once known as GMAC, are also subject to the reviews.

But this year, the Fed has also ordered the next dozen largest lenders with assets of at least $50 billion to undergo what is essentially a do-it-yourself version of the exam. These institutions — including Discover Financial, Northern Trust, and Zions Bancshares as well as the United States subsidiaries of several foreign banks, like BBVA, HSBC, and the Royal Bank of Scotland — had not previously participated in formal stress tests.

They must make similar loss assumptions that will be validated by Fed officials. But the bar for the level of detail and analysis supplied by each of those banks is generally expected to be lower, given the size and scope of their activities. These stress tests, with those required for the 19 biggest banks, will help the Fed satisfy a new requirement for annual reviews of large financial companies under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=11fe584f187ca0d6331d6fbaf9069fa5

DealBook: Citi to Shed 3,000 Jobs; BNP Paribas Plans to Cut About 1,400

A Citibank branch in New York. The bank has already notified some employees who will lose their jobs.Mark Lennihan/Associated PressA Citibank branch in New York. The bank has already notified some employees who will lose their jobs.

The ax continues to fall on Wall Street.

Citigroup is drawing up plans to eliminate about 3,000 jobs, or 1 percent of its global work force, and on Wednesday, BNP Paribas announced plans to cut about 1,400 jobs, or less than 1 percent of its staff.

While Citigroup has not settled on a final number, the staff reductions could exceed 3,000, with roughly a third coming from its securities and banking unit, said one person with direct knowledge of the plans who spoke anonymously because the numbers were not final. Citigroup has already notified some employees who will lose their jobs in the coming months. The timing of the layoffs is also uncertain, and could take place throughout the next year.

At BNP Paribas, almost 400 jobs will be eliminated in France, with the remaining layoffs coming at the bank’s international operations.

The moves reflect the broader austerity measures across Wall Street.

Goldman Sachs has prepared to eliminate about 1,000 jobs, or roughly 3 percent of its work force. The bank also could cut up to $1.45 billion in costs, or 5 percent of its expenses, as DealBook previously reported.

Bank of America, perhaps the most embattled American banking giant, has already shed 3,500 jobs in recent months, and that its only a starting point. The bank, which continues to labor under the weight of its troubled mortgage business, could yet decide on a broader round of job cuts resulting in 30,000 layoffs.

New York is feeling the pain. Some 10,000 securities industry workers could lose their jobs through 2012, bringing total reductions to 32,000 since January 2008, according to a report by the New York state comptroller.

Foreign banks are also trimming their rosters. UBS announced earlier this year that it would eliminate 3,500 jobs over the next next two-plus years, a move to rein in costs at the struggling Swiss bank. Credit Suisse also has plans to cut about 600 jobs in its investment banking operation.

Nomura of Japan said on Wednesday that it had begun a new round of layoffs as part of the bank’s attempt to reduce costs by $1.2 billion. A Nomura official declined to give an exact figure, but said the majority of cost savings would come from Europe, where the bank employs about 4,500 people.

Citigroup’s plan to shed around 1 percent of its staff was reported on Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 16, 2011

An earlier caption misstated the percentage of job cuts planned by Citigroup. The bank plans to cut 1 percent of its global work force.

Due to an editing error, an earlier version of the story incorrectly stated the percentage of planned job cuts at BNP Paribas. It is .7%, not 7%.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=26e702bdb17f02eee6e628cdb9709b73

Bucks Blog: Microsoft and Yahoo Equalize Health Benefits for Gay Employees

The Cost of Being Gay

A look at the financial realities of same-sex partnerships.

With open enrollment season in full swing, several big companies have said that they would begin to reimburse gay employees for the extra taxes they pay on health insurance for their significant others. Now, two more technology giants, Microsoft and Yahoo, have decided to join in, starting Jan. 1.

Married heterosexual couples don’t have to pay the taxes because their unions are recognized by the federal government.

While Yahoo’s new policy will apply only to same-sex partners and their dependents, Microsoft said it would also begin to offer domestic partner insurance to workers with opposite-sex partners. And they will get the extra reimbursement, too.

The movement to equalize benefits has picked up speed in recent weeks, as companies revisit their employee benefit policies for the coming year. Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and American Express have also announced similar changes. There’s still a long way to go — most companies don’t “gross up,” as the reimbursements are known. But we’ve been closely tracking corporate America’s progress in this chart.

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income if the partner is not considered a dependent. On top of that, the employees cannot use pretax dollars to pay for their premiums — unlike their opposite-sex married counterparts.

So while many big companies offer health insurance coverage for domestic partners, it costs employees more money to use it. To level the playing field between gay and heterosexual employees, more companies are digging into their own pockets to cover the extra expense.

Many of them choose only to cover same-sex couples since heterosexual domestic partners have the option to marry and avoid the extra taxes. That makes Microsoft’s new policy stand out as being particularly generous.

Is your company on our chart? If not, mention the name in the comment section below and we’ll ask the company if it has any plans to change its policy. We’re also curious to learn about any big companies that do not offer domestic partner health insurance.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3cf2aff9a0563df744ee6462cae1392a

Bucks Blog: PerkStreet, Kasasa and the War Over Your Checking Account

Dan O'Malley of PerkStreet, which gives checking account customers as much as 2 percent back on their purchases when they use their debit cards.Jodi Hilton for The New York TimesDan O’Malley of PerkStreet, which gives checking account customers as much as 2 percent back on their purchases when they use their debit cards.

I remain obsessed, as ever, with the outliers in financial services who continue to be particularly generous to their customers. So when both President Obama and Senator Dick Durbin took to the airwaves to denounce Bank of America’s new $5 monthly debit card fee this week, I got curious about what was going to become of the various rewards checking accounts I’ve written about in the last year or two.

One of them comes from PerkStreet, which gives customers up to 2 percent back on all debit card purchases that people sign for. Another comes from BancVue and is often known these days as Kasasa. Here, account holders who make lots of debit card purchases each month can earn 2 or 3 percent interest on the money in their checking accounts, up to certain limits.

This week’s Your Money column is about whether such feats of generosity are sustainable. If you are a customer of either, please let us know how it’s been going so far. If you’ve turned away from them because you think it can’t last, please say so as well.

And yes, for all of you who plan on (loudly) noting in the comments that it is merchants who ultimately pay for these deals through the fees they must pay to accept debit cards, I did explain all of that in the column, too. But have at it anyway if you need to blow off some steam.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1d01830bab02df4466e0fc871fd14d1e

Stocks and Bonds: Wall Street Closes Sharply Lower

Shares in every major sector spiraled downward on Monday as the market dropped to its lowest point in over a year amid anxiety over the European debt crisis and the struggling United States economy.

The nation’s biggest banks were once again hard hit, with Citigroup and Bank of America plunging almost 10 percent while shares of regional and community banks also plummeted. American Airlines fell by almost a third to just below $2 on speculation that it could declare bankruptcy.

The sharp sell-off brought Wall Street to the edge of a bear market — generally a fall of 20 percent from a recent high — as the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index showed a 19.4 percent decline since its April 29 high. That, in turn, could unleash yet another wave of negative news that could scare investors and push stocks even lower.

“People are really panicked, so any more incremental news in that direction, bad headlines if you will, are certainly things that may spur momentum to the downside,” said Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist for LPL Financial.

On Monday, the S. P. 500 fell 2.85 percent, or 32.19 points to 1,099.23. The Dow Jones industrial average was off 258.08 points, or 2.36 percent, to close at 10,655.30. The Nasdaq composite index dropped 3.29 percent. Major stock markets in Europe and Japan also closed lower.

Seeking safer assets, investors flocked to Treasury bonds. Yields on the benchmark 10-year note fell to 1.75 percent from 1.92 percent late Friday. Fears that the problems in Europe might spread across the Atlantic and push an extremely fragile economy back into a recession have been looming for more than a year. With the job market still weak and the confidence of businesses and consumers in tatters, investors seem to be lurching from one piece of bad news to another.

Through the summer, for every big gain in stocks there were twice as many big losses, with 13 days of drops of 2 percent or more compared with seven days of gains of at least 2 percent. The rises were often driven by hopes that the European debt crisis could be contained, but then were wiped out by fears of cascading defaults and bank runs, and no real solution to too much debt and too little growth in Europe.

Even glimmers of hope, like reports on Monday showing stronger-than-expected manufacturing and construction data, were overshadowed by the unknowns about what will happen in Europe.

“That uncertainty has the markets completely shell-shocked, in jitters,” said Nariman Behravesh of IHS Global Insight.

In Europe, stock markets closed lower as finance ministers from the euro zone countries met Monday to try to approve a new installment of aid to Greece. But tension over the country’s inability to impose tough structural changes has stalled the talks, and no decision is expected this week.

Investors are also awaiting a meeting of the European Central Bank on Thursday, and many expect the bank to cut interest rates. Analysts say such action could push the euro lower and perhaps stave off a sharper decline in growth.

But fears about European contagion again weighed heavily on the major American banks, whose shares have fallen more than 35 percent this year.

“It’s just painful. Every day seems like it is the worst,” said Frederick Cannon, the chief equity strategist at Keefe, Bruyette Woods in New York. “As long as U.S. financials are tied to the comings and goings of Europe, it is going to be a roller-coaster ride without an end to it.”

Wall Street firms were pounded as investors worried that they may have large, indirect exposures to the Continent’s fiscal troubles because of the business they do with major European companies and banks. On Monday, Morgan Stanley’s shares fell almost 8 percent after plunging more than 10 percent on Friday. Shares of Goldman Sachs fell almost 5 percent Monday.

In another sign of investor fears, credit-default swaps on bonds backed by both Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs surged on Monday to their highest levels since the 2008 financial crisis. According to Markit, a credit derivatives data provider, investors are now paying $558,000 to insure against the risk that $10 million of Morgan Stanley bonds might default. They are paying $348,000 for similar protection for Goldman Sachs debt.

More domestically focused banks were not spared. Amid the onslaught of bad economic news — and fears of another weak jobs report on Friday — investors were dubious about the financial industry’s ability to improve revenue. They are also concerned that Federal Reserve policy measures to keep interest rates near zero for the next two yeas will ravage their results. Even generally well-run institutions — like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, PNC Financial, U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo — fell 3 to 5 percent.

Airline stocks were also battered on Monday amid concerns consumers and businesses will cut back on travel spending in a deeper downturn. Traders started circling AMR, the parent company of American Airlines, because of rumors that it may be headed for bankruptcy.

An analyst report noted that an unusually large number of pilots have retired in recent months, contributing to AMR’s price drop of more than 33 percent, to $1.98. Shares of Delta Air Lines and United Continental Holdings fell about 11 percent. The U.S. Airways Group stocks sank almost 16 percent.

David Jolly, Stephen Castle and Bettina Wassener contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 3, 2011

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the price of oil. It is trading slightly above $77, not $777.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=553fda21528c7ff61d8cc188e6aa70b4

DealBook: Moody’s Cuts Ratings on Three Big Banks

Moody’s Investors Service cut its credit ratings on Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo on Wednesday, saying that Washington was now less likely to bail out the banks if needed.

“The downgrades result from a decrease in the probability that the U.S. government would support the bank, if needed,” Moody’s said.

The ratings agency said that it did think the government would provide some support to systemically important financial institutions. But the huge bailouts that rescued Bank of America and Citigroup and others during the financial crisis might not happen again, Moody’s said.

“It is also more likely now than during the financial crisis to allow a large bank to fail should it become financially troubled, as the risks of contagion become less acute.” the ratings agency said. It added that the moves “do not reflect a weakening of the intrinsic credit quality” of the bank.

The ratings agency cut Bank of America’s long-term senior debt to Baa1 from A2 and lowered short-term debt to Prime-2 from Prime-1.

Shares of Bank of America were down 3.7 percent in early afternoon trading.

In a statement, Bank of America said: “Moody’s decision to downgrade our credit rating is based on factors external to Bank of America: Their conclusion that the Dodd-Frank legislation will make the U.S. government less likely to support financial institutions in a crisis, and a possible further deterioration of the economy. In fact, Moody’s explicitly stated that the downgrades do not reflect a weakening of the intrinsic credit quality of Bank of America.”

The bank said it had made “significant progress” in improving its capital and liquidity positions.

During the financial crisis, Bank of America received some $45 billion in federal aid, which it has since repaid. The bank has been trying to shore up investor confidence as it continues to struggle with the legacy of tens of billions of dollars in bad mortgage assets. In recent weeks, it has announced an executive shakeup, a streamlining that will cut 30,000 jobs and a $5 billion investment by Warren E. Buffett.

Moody’s also cut its ratings on Citigroup’s short-term debt to Prime 2 from Prime 1, while affirming its A3 long-term rating.

Shares of Citigroup were slightly lower, at $26.85. In a statement, the bank said: “We completely disagree with Moody’s change to Citigroup’s short-term rating. It does not accurately reflect the significant progress Citi has made since Moody’s last rated Citi more than two-and-a-half years ago.”

And Moody’s lowered its rating on Wells Fargo’s senior debt to A2 from A1. Its Prime-1 short-term rating was affirmed. Its shares were up 0.8 percent in afternoon trading.

In June, the ratings agency had put Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo on review for a possible downgrade.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=602fac1a5a2dc7eb775ec54ebfa6446d

DealBook: The Perils of Chasing Buffett


An investment by Warren E. Buffett is often seen as a harbinger of good fortune for a company’s shareholders.

When Berkshire Hathaway made a $5 billion investment in Bank of America last month, the stock quickly jumped — a phenomenon known as the Buffett bounce.

But it does not always pay to follow Mr. Buffett’s moves, at least when he buys preferred shares rather than common stock.

Consider his General Electric deal. Mr. Buffett, who in 2008 swooped in with a $3 billion investment for the troubled conglomerate, will net a tidy profit when G.E. pays back the money next month.

Warren Buffett, chief of Berkshire Hathaway.Charles Dharapak/Associated PressWarren E. Buffett, chief of Berkshire Hathaway.

Along with his principal, Mr. Buffett will take home an extra $300 million, as well as any accrued and unpaid dividends. During the course of his investment, the preferred shares paid a 10 percent annual dividend, or roughly $300 million a year.

Investors in the common stock have not fared as well over the same period. At the time of Mr. Buffett’s investment, shares of G.E. were trading at about $24.50. Today, they are down nearly 40 percent, at about $15.40.

It is a similar story with Goldman Sachs, which took a $5 billion lifeline from Mr. Buffett during the depths of the financial crisis.

The investment bank returned the cash earlier this year. As in the G.E. deal, Mr. Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway banked an annual 10 percent dividend, plus some extras when Goldman paid back the money. In all, Mr. Buffett took home $1.7 billion on the investment, or about $190,000 a day.

Goldman investors have not been as fortunate. When Mr. Buffett stepped onto the scene, the stock was selling for about $125 a share; it is now at about $104.

Of course, Mr. Buffett has an interest in seeing the stocks of Goldman Sachs and G.E. do well.

In both cases, he has warrants to purchase common shares of the companies at specific prices, which can be exercised through 2013. At current levels, those warrants are essentially worthless.

While it remains to be seen how Mr. Buffett will ultimately fare on his investment in Bank of America, the deal has all the hallmarks of those for Goldman and G.E. There is a 6 percent annual payout and a premium at redemption of $250 million.

And once again, Berkshire will share in any upside in the stock. Over the next 10 years, the company has the right to purchase 700 million shares at a strike price just north of $7.14. (The shares are currently at $7.)

But those stock gains would mainly be gravy.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=119ed4faf2a09e1358bf64599c3e6a9d

DealBook: Chasing Buffett Is Not Always So Golden


An investment by Warren E. Buffett is often seen as a harbinger of good fortune for a company’s shareholders.

When Berkshire Hathaway made a $5 billion investment in Bank of America last month, the stock quickly jumped — a phenomenon known as the Buffett bounce.

But it does not always pay to follow Mr. Buffett’s moves, at least when he buys preferred shares rather than common stock.

Consider his General Electric deal. Mr. Buffett, who in 2008 swooped in with a $3 billion investment for the troubled conglomerate, will net a tidy profit when G.E. pays back the money next month.

Warren Buffett, chief of Berkshire Hathaway.Charles Dharapak/Associated PressWarren E. Buffett, chief of Berkshire Hathaway.

Along with his principal, Mr. Buffett will take home an extra $300 million, as well as any accrued and unpaid dividends. During the course of his investment, the preferred shares paid a 10 percent annual dividend, or roughly $300 million a year.

Investors in the common stock have not fared as well over the same period. At the time of Mr. Buffett’s investment, shares of G.E. were trading at about $24.50. Today, they are down nearly 40 percent, at about $15.40.

It is a similar story with Goldman Sachs, which took a $5 billion lifeline from Mr. Buffett during the depths of the financial crisis.

The investment bank returned the cash earlier this year. As in the G.E. deal, Mr. Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway banked an annual 10 percent dividend, plus some extras when Goldman paid back the money. In all, Mr. Buffett took home $1.7 billion on the investment, or about $190,000 a day.

Goldman investors have not been as fortunate. When Mr. Buffett stepped onto the scene, the stock was selling for about $125 a share; it is now at about $104.

Of course, Mr. Buffett has an interest in seeing the stocks of Goldman Sachs and G.E. do well.

In both cases, he has warrants to purchase common shares of the companies at specific prices, which can be exercised through 2013. At current levels, those warrants are essentially worthless.

While it remains to be seen how Mr. Buffett will ultimately fare on his investment in Bank of America, the deal has all the hallmarks of those for Goldman and G.E. There is a 6 percent annual payout and a premium at redemption of $250 million.

And once again, Berkshire will share in any upside in the stock. Over the next 10 years, the company has the right to purchase 700 million shares at a strike price just north of $7.14. (The shares are currently at $7.)

But those stock gains would mainly be gravy.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=119ed4faf2a09e1358bf64599c3e6a9d

DealBook: Outsiders’ Ideas Help Bank of America Cut Jobs and Costs

A Bank of America branch in Glenview, Ill. On Monday, the bank announced plans to cut jobs and reduce annual costs over the next three years.Tannen Maury/European Pressphoto AgencyA Bank of America branch in Glenview, Ill. On Monday, the bank announced plans to cut jobs and reduce annual costs over the next three years.

As Bank of America executives prepared last week to announce the first phase of their turnaround plan, a group of consultants hurried to complete their recommendations for the overhaul, called Project New BAC.

The 44 senior bank managers and roughly two dozen consultants assigned to the initiative worked through lunch, barely pausing to enjoy the pepperoni, sausage and vegetarian pies that had been ordered from a pizzeria.

On Monday, the bank’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, announced the broad strokes of their five-month effort, announcing plans to eliminate 30,000 jobs and cut annual costs by $5 billion over the next three years.

“We don’t have to be the biggest company out there. We have to be the best,” Mr. Moynihan said.

The consulting firms enlisted to help with Project New BAC — EHS Partners and the Promontory Financial Group — are what are known in the industry as bank doctors. Financial firms often turn to these specialists in periods of crisis, seeking out their recommendations on deep and wide-ranging cuts to bolster revenue and eliminate unnecessary expenses.

The idea is that outsiders can find thousands of small savings and inefficient processes that insiders may miss.

Promontory and EHS both have long ties to Bank of America, and to each other.

Eric Holder, who is leading EHS’s work on Project New BAC, and Neil Smith, Promontory’s head consultant on the project, were both members of a team from Tandon Capital Associates that helped the Fleet Financial Group with a similar effort in 1994.

On that project, called Fleet Focus ’94, Mr. Holder and Mr. Smith worked with a team of 50 internal managers known inside the bank as the “Nifty 50.” One of those 50 managers was a budding young lawyer named Brian T. Moynihan.

At Fleet, the consultants recommended cutting Styrofoam coffee cups that cost the company $48,000 a year. Name-brand toner for Fleet’s laser printers was replaced with a generic toner to save $200,000 a year.

In all, Fleet cut annual costs by $300 million and laid off 3,000 workers. The changes helped Fleet’s bottom line and set the stage for an eventual takeover. In 2004, it was acquired by Bank of America for about $48 billion in stock, at the time one of the largest bank mergers in history.

In 1999, Mr. Holder, Mr. Smith and another consultant, Jeremy D. Eden, started their own firm, EHS Partners. They worked on cost-cutting for institutions including Mellon Financial, the PNC Financial Services Group and the Union Bank of California.

But in 2009, Mr. Smith left EHS to start a rival team at Promontory Financial, a large consulting firm that specializes in regulatory and legal work and that helped Morgan Stanley revamp itself as a bank holding company after the financial crisis.

A person with knowledge of the companies who spoke anonymously to avoid angering the firms described Mr. Smith’s split from Mr. Holder as an acrimonious divorce that capped years of tension between the men, making their joint assignment on Bank of America all the more unlikely.

“I can’t even imagine how that works,” the person said. “When you think about the importance of figuring out Bank of America’s issues, that’s hard enough. To add another level of complexity with the consultants working out their own issues is another thing.”

Promontory and EHS declined to comment on their relationship. Bank of America declined to comment on the two firms, and a spokesman said many of the changes made in Project New BAC had come from bank employees rather than from outside consultants.

Since Project New BAC was announced last spring, Mr. Holder’s team from EHS; Mr. Smith’s team, Promontory Growth and Innovation; and another team from Promontory that is focusing on regulatory issues have been working four days a week from the bank’s headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., camping out in cubicles on the seventh floor.

The Bank of America managers assigned to work on the project full time have led small teams of bank managers in a division-by-division review of operations. In phase one, roughly 150,000 ideas were submitted by Bank of America employees, and the best were presented to Mr. Moynihan and his management team.

Consultant-led reform programs are common in banking, especially in the case of a company that, like Bank of America, has grown rapidly through mergers and acquisitions. When done correctly, the recommendations can trim fat and make a bank more competitive.

“For a larger bank with so many acquisitions in the past, it makes sense to have someone come look at the process and the overlaps,” said Jefferson Harralson, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette, and Woods.

The process can be painful. One project led by EHS, a 1999 revamp of the Union Bank of California that was called “Mission Excel,” saved the bank hundreds of millions of dollars and increased profits. But those savings included cutting 1,400 jobs, and the project was reportedly renamed “Mission Expel” by some employees.

“Barnacles grow on a bank, and it’s good to have an outsider come scrape them off,” said Charles Wendel, president of Financial Institutions Consulting. “But one of the great clichés is that you can’t shrink your way to greatness.”

After submitting their final recommendations, the team of consultants and company employees shared drinks on Thursday on a terrace at Bank of America’s headquarters. Mr. Moynihan thanked them for their hard work, which in some cases included relocating temporarily to Charlotte.

But their job is far from over. The first phase focused on Bank of America’s retail side, where many of the most obvious cuts were made. In the next phase, which is expected to begin in late October, EHS and Promontory will look at the commercial banking and wealth management divisions.

“They’re pulling the lower hanging fruit first,” said Mr. Harralson. “There’s more to come.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=668fe837a581ecc0526580e2218e3199

Stocks Trim the Day’s Deepest Losses

Analysts said that Wall Street’s drop was also a carryover from last week’s disappointing report on United States unemployment and from news that major American banks were facing a federal lawsuit related to their handling of mortgage securities.

While stocks slumped in early trading by about 3 percent, they curbed losses toward the end of the day. The Dow Jones industrial average of 30 stocks was down 0.9 percent, or 100.96 points, to 11,139.30. The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index lost 0.7 percent, or 8.73 points, to 1,165.24, The Nasdaq composite fell 0.3 percent, or 6.50 points, to 2,473.83.

Investors stayed with the security of fixed-income instruments. The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note rose 3/32, to 101 9/32. The yield fell to 1.98 percent from 1.99 percent late Friday.

“The whole market is under pressure because of what is going on in Europe,” said Jason Arnold, a financial analyst with RBC Capital Markets.

The equity losses were reminiscent of those on Friday, when the Labor Department reported zero job growth in the United States economy in August. In addition, the market reacted to reports of impending legal action by federal regulators against 17 financial institutions that sold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nearly $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities that later soured. Investors fled financial shares, and on Tuesday the sector continued to be hit hard, closing 1.7 percent lower.

Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase each declined more than 3 percent. Bank of America fell to $6.99 and Chase to $33.44. Citigroup fell 2.5 percent to $27.70. Morgan Stanley was down nearly 4 percent at $15.33

Bank stocks, which are particularly sensitive to prospects for lending and housing, are seen as being at additional risk because of regulatory and legal issues after the lawsuits were filed on Friday. “There really has not been particularly good news in the financial space for a while,” Mr. Arnold said. “It is just waning optimism for financials.”

But most of the focus in the markets has been on the lack of progress in solving persistent euro zone debt problems, which “is creating a pocket of selling with no buyers,” said Alan B. Lancz, the president of Alan B. Lancz Associates. In addition, investors are concerned about the impact on global growth of weak economic data.

The market turmoil of recent weeks showed no signs of letting up. On Tuesday, gold rose to another nominal high, and Swiss authorities took action to weaken the franc, which has soared because of its role as a haven.

In the United States, economic data was scrutinized for any sign of strength in the country’s recovery. The Institute for Supply Management said Tuesday that the services sector of the economy expanded in August, the 21st consecutive month it has done so, as reflected in the 53.3 reading of the I.S.M. nonmanufacturing index, although expansion in some sectors, like business activity, was slowing down.

The survey exceeded forecasts assembled by Bloomberg News that pointed to a reading of 51. A reading of 50 is meant to be the dividing line between an expanding economy and a contracting one.

Debt concerns related to the euro zone, particularly over Greece and Italy; the bank lawsuits in the United States; and worries about economic growth were the biggest factors damping prices, Michael A. Mullaney, vice president of the Fiduciary Trust Company, and other analysts said.

“Friday set the tone with the employment report,” Mr. Mullaney said. “We are basically hard struck to find out where the growth engines are going to come from.”

The conditions were worryingly similar to those of the sell-off that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, Deutsche Bank’s chief executive, Josef Ackermann, said Monday.

In Zurich, the Swiss National Bank said it was setting a minimum value of 1.20 francs per euro and was prepared to spend an “unlimited” amount to defend it. The central bank was acting to help the country’s exporters, who fear being priced out of foreign markets by the strong franc.

Asian and European markets were lower. Gold futures eased slightly to $1,869.90 an ounce after rising more than 1 percent to more than $1,900 an ounce in Comex trading.

David Jolly and Bettina Wassener contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=82e4a9919b53ccca2189c8a252e672fd