May 15, 2024

DealBook: Amid Protests, Blankfein Cancels College Talk

Lloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs.Chris Kleponis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs.

The students of Barnard College were expecting to hear from Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, as part of a lecture series titled “Power Talks.”

But over the weekend, Mr. Blankfein informed the college that he was canceling his appearance, originally planned for Thursday night, because of a scheduling conflict.

“Mr. Blankfein has informed us that he must be in Washington D.C. that evening and will be unable to deliver his lecture as planned,” read a statement on the college’s Web site.

A planned visit by one of the most recognizable chief executives on Wall Street had stirred anger at Barnard, a liberal arts college whose president, Debora L. Spar, was elected to Goldman’s board this summer. The timing of Mr. Blankfein’s lecture, which coincided with the continued encampment of the Occupy Wall Street movement in lower Manhattan, certainly didn’t help matters.

Barnard students were planning a week of workshops to coincide with Mr. Blankfein’s talk. According to The Columbia Spectator, students called the series “School the Squid,” a reference to Matt Taibbi’s “vampire squid” characterization of Goldman Sachs in his now-infamous Rolling Stone take-down.

“CU Activists were planning a teach-in outside the Barnard gates to explain why he is not a responsible citizen nor a role model,” Yoni Golijov, a Columbia student, told The Spectator. Two other groups were reportedly planning simultaneous protests.

Several Twitter users had also picked up on Mr. Blankfein’s planned appearance in connection with Occupy Wall Street. “Who wants to give Goldman Sachs’s CEO a few problems on October 12?” wrote user @Austingst.

Had Mr. Blankfein spoken at Barnard, he would not have been the first financial executive to face backlash at a public appearance. In 2008, union activists interrupted a speech by David M. Rubenstein, the co-founder of the Carlyle Group, during a private equity conference at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

The students of Barnard may never know if threats of undergraduate unrest were to blame for Mr. Blankfein’s cancellation. A Goldman spokesman said that Mr. Blankfein had “cancelled because of a scheduling conflict.” And Kathryn Kolbert, the director of the Athena Center, said that while organizers were working with Mr. Blankfein to reschedule the event, any new date would “probably not be this fall.”

Barnard is refunding ticket-holders for Thursday’s event.

Whatever the cause of Mr. Blankfein’s no-show, the college may want to consider re-titling its lecture series “Power Talks, Except When It Doesn’t.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e5f217fab4eb68319f0ee07d6a75d373

DealBook: UBS to Slash 3,500 Jobs

UBS, the embattled Swiss bank, said on Tuesday that it would cut 3,500 jobs over the next two and a half years to reduce costs.

About half of the job cuts will be in the investment banking division, which has continued to be one of the worst-performing units of the bank. The rest of the cuts are to come from the wealth management and asset management businesses.

The cost-cutting measures would incur one-time charges of about 550 million Swiss francs ($698 million), and most of it would be booked in the second half of this year, UBS said.

The measures were “designed to improve operating efficiency,” UBS, Switzerland’s biggest bank, said in a statement. “UBS will continue to be vigilant in managing its cost base while remaining committed to investing in growth areas.”

The announcement came after the bank’s chief executive, Oswald J. Grübel, said last month that he planned to cut 2 billion francs of costs after profit fell 50 percent in the second quarter, but he did not give more details at the time. The bank had also warned that it would miss its earnings target set two years ago because a weaker economic outlook was expected to curb profit.

UBS said on Tuesday that about 45 percent of the 3,500 job cuts would come from its investment banking unit, which had repeatedly reported dismal figures and failed to fully recover from huge losses during the subprime mortgage crisis.

Some analysts had criticized UBS for lacking a clear strategy for the investment banking unit and questioned just how big the business should be within UBS.

Efforts by Carsten Kengeter, the former Goldman Sachs manager in charge of the investment banking unit, to overhaul the division were hampered recently by a string of departures among senior bankers. Mr. Grübel said in February that the unit’s performance was unsatisfactory and threatened to reduce it if revenue did not recover.

Other banks have announced job cuts recently in light of falling earnings as clients prefer to reduce risks amid concerns about a deteriorating global economy.

HSBC plans to cut 30,000 jobs, Credit Suisse said it would cut 2,000 positions and the Lloyds Banking Group is in the process of eliminating 15,000 jobs.

Profit at UBS fell to 1 billion francs in the three months through June, from 2 billion francs in the period a year earlier. Pretax profit in the investment banking unit slumped to 376 million francs from 1.3 billion francs.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6d984f78deb29dbd34deb868dcec3a10

Banking Sector Punished Over European Debt

The clearest signs of the anxiety are in the stock market, where shares of American banks plunged again on Wednesday. Bank of America dropped almost 11 percent. Citigroup sank 10.5 percent. Goldman Sachs fell 10 percent, while Morgan Stanley was down 9.7 percent.

All told, bank stocks have fallen more than 30 percent since the beginning of the year — and have swung wildly up and down over the last week — as the weakening economy is expected to take a toll on business and reduce earnings.

But concerns about European banks are driving the latest wave of selling. Société Générale’s share price dropped 14.7 percent on Wednesday, the most of any European bank, as its chief executive “denied all rumors” that he said caused the stock to fall.

Other European giants were alsopounded. Shares of Intesa Sanpaolo of Italy fell nearly 14 percent. Crédit Agricole and AXA Financial of France dropped more than 10 percent apiece.

Financial institutions across the Continent have huge holdings of government and corporate bonds from Italy and Spain. Doubts about the financial health of European lenders are encouraging investors to unload their shares and driving up their borrowing costs.

Those banks, in turn, trade billions daily with their counterparts on Wall Street. They also rely on billions of dollars invested by American money market mutual funds to finance loans and other investments.

That has created a vicious circle, where fears about the soundness of European banks are feeding new concerns about the stability of American financial institutions.

“The European situation is back and isn’t going away,” said Alex Roever, the head of short-term fixed income at JPMorgan Chase. “It continues to keep pressure on the market.”

Only a few months ago, American banks looked as if they had finally found their footing. Loan losses were easing. Profits and bonuses were back. Even some of the new regulations had turned out to be not as draconian as many bankers once believed.

But there has been a steady drumbeat of dismal headlines in the last few weeks. First, weak data for the housing market and the broader economy suggested that banks would find it even harder to grow. Standard Poor’s downgrade of the United States government further rattled confidence, the lifeblood of the financial system.

Then, in a sign of how grim things had become, the Federal Reserve took the unprecedented step of pledging to keep interest rates near zero for the next two years. That may prevent the economy from slipping into another recession, but it will squeeze lending profits that make up the bulk of banks’ income.

And that comes as demand is already slowing for all kinds of loans and a wave of deal making has been shelved.

“Everyone is going to be lowering their estimates,” said David Ellison, the chief investment officer of two FBR mutual funds that invest in financial companies. “You are going to have lower loan growth and lower margins; we are in a new era.”

If that were not enough, there are lingering worries about the legal hangover from the housing bust. Bank of America, which faces potentially tens of billions of dollars in investor claims, held an unusual conference call on Wednesday to reassure shareholders it could cope with all settlements, among other concerns. Its shares fell to $6.77 on Wednesday, after reaching a postcrisis high of almost $20 in April 2010.

Now, as Europe’s fiscal troubles spread to core trading partners like France, there are renewed fears of contagion. The links between French and American institutions, after all, are orders of magnitude larger than they are between American banks and say, Greek, or even Spanish ones.

For example, according to the Bank for International Settlements, French banks owed American institutions more than $160 billion at the end of 2010.  Spanish banks owed less than $20 billion. And that’s not counting the billions of dollars that big American banks lend directly to overseas companies or any European government debt they hold as investments.

Nowhere is that nervousness greater than in the short-term financing markets, where European banks turn to American money funds each day for tens of billions of dollars in funding.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/business/financial-stocks-plunge-in-us-as-anxiety-rises-over-european-bank-crisis.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Markets Stumble on Deficit Worries

In Europe, the euro weakened and the bond yields of indebted nations climbed as investors worried about the degree of political will to overcome the region’s debt crisis.

Investors also remained concerned about events in the United States, where President Obama is trying to get lawmakers to agree to a deficit-reducing package before an Aug. 2 deadline for increasing the debt ceiling.

“People are very concerned about the length of the process in the debt-ceiling debate,” said Russell Price, a senior economist with Ameriprise Financial, adding that there were also concerns about contagion in the euro zone debt crisis.

On Wall Street in late afternoon, the Dow Jones industrial average was down 124.31 points, or 1.00 percent, to 12,355.42 and the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index lost 13.80 points, or 1.05 percent, to 1,302.34.

Stocks also may have been reacting to a Goldman Sachs report Friday that cut the outlook for real United States economic growth in the near term. Goldman Sachs economists cut their forecasts to 1.5 percent in the second quarter from 2 percent, and to 2.5 percent in the third quarter from 3.25 percent.

In Europe, the market jitters marked the start of an important week for the European Union as its leaders attempt to stem full-blown market contagion.

The leaders will hold a special summit meeting Thursday, but there appears to be no agreement yet over the terms of a second bailout for Greece, especially on the nature of a private sector contribution.

The lack of clarity along with recent investor sales of Italian and Spanish bonds have led analysts to become increasingly pessimistic.

“The euro zone crisis has recently worsened significantly, exacerbated by disagreements between the E.U.’s key politicians,” said Ruth Lea, an economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group in London. “It is becoming increasingly clear that there will have to be major steps towards fiscal union or the euro zone will begin to disintegrate.”

She added that the “debt crisis can fairly be described as having morphed into a political crisis.”

Further complicating the latest Greek rescue, the European Central Bank’s president, Jean-Claude Trichet, reiterated during an interview with The Financial Times Deutschland published Monday that the bank would not accept bonds from any defaulting country as collateral. That could leave Greek banks without financing if credit agencies deem a restructuring, even a voluntary one, to be a default.

The Euro Stoxx 50, a benchmark index of blue-chips stocks in the region, closed down 1.98 percent in late afternoon trading, and the CAC 40 in Paris lost 2.04 percent for the day. The euro weakened to $1.4044 from $1.4157 late Friday.

Perceived as a haven, the Swiss franc surged to a record high against both the euro and the dollar Monday. The euro declined to 1.14848 francs and the dollar dropped to 0.8177 francs. The price of gold for August delivery also touched a new nominal high, rising above $1,600 a troy ounce, as investors sought safer assets.

Further clouding the picture were the stress tests on the region’s banks carried out by regulators . The results were released after markets closed Friday. The threshold to pass the test was set at a core Tier 1 capital ratio, which encompasses safe assets, at 5 percent.

Of the 90 banks, eight failed, with an aggregate capital shortfall 2.5 billion euros. But the exercise left unanswered many questions about how many healthier lenders would survive a deepening of the debt crisis, given their exposure to Greek, Italian and Spanish bonds. A sovereign default case was excluded from the tests.

Also on Monday, the European Central Bank made no use of its program to buy government bonds last week despite market speculation that it had weighed in to support Italian and Spanish bonds, The Associated Press reported. The bank said in a statement Monday that it purchased no bonds. It’s the 11th consecutive week the bank has left the program idle.

Yields on riskier Italian 10-year bonds pushed higher — up 0.20 percentage point, at 5.941 percent — alongside rising yields on Spanish, Portuguese and Greek equivalents.

Last week, Italy accelerated a deficit-cutting plan, aware that investors had been selling its debt fearing it might need outside support.

Matthew Saltmarsh reported from London and Christine Hauser reported from New York.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ea5b7e4d71b574cb9cbd0a624532c306

DealBook: Regulators Are Said to Weigh Softer Derivatives Rules

Scott O'Malia, left, and Jill Sommer, with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the chairman, Gary Gensler, at a meeting in Washington last year.Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg NewsScott O’Malia, left, and Jill Sommer, with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the chairman, Gary Gensler, at a meeting in Washington last year.

Federal regulators are considering backing off a plan to curb Wall Street’s control over the derivatives market, another potential win for the big banks.

Last fall, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed rules that would prevent a bank or financial firm from controlling more than 20 percent of any one derivatives exchange or trading facility. Now, regulators are discussing lowering the cap, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

Related Links

The rule, stemming from the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul, was aimed at tearing down monopolies in the $600 trillion market, which played a central role in the financial crisis.

But as DealBook reported on Thursday, Wall Street has since begun a fierce behind-the-scenes effort to delay or water down many of the regulatory changes passed by Congress in the aftermath of the crisis. Regulators recently agreed to put off the derivatives rules for up to six months.

The commodities agency has held nearly 50 private meetings on the monopoly issue alone, hosting Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. A group of regulators also traveled to New York this spring to tour some derivatives exchanges.

Afterward, regulators began reconsidering their proposal to cap bank ownership at 20 percent, according to one agency official. The regulators worried that, without financial support from banks, exchanges could fold, this person said.

The agency has not yet reached a final decision, according to the people. An agency spokesman did not return a request for comment.

As Wall Street pushes the commodities agency to soften the proposals, federal prosecutors are calling for regulators to beef up the rules.

Christine Varney, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief.Alex Wong/Getty ImagesChristine Varney, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief.

The proposals “may not sufficiently protect and promote competition in the industry,” Christine Varney, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, said in a December letter to regulators. Ms. Varney, who will soon leave the government to join Cravath, Swaine Moore, likened the situation to “three or five largest airlines controlling all landing rights at every U.S. airport.”

As The New York Times reported late last year, the Justice Department has been investigating possible anticompetitive practices in the derivatives industry.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1baa2cc1b29a38eaceb670911b7ffc01

DealBook: Wall Street Lobbyists Aim to ‘Reform the Reform’

Steve Bartlett, chief of the Financial Services Roundtable.Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York TimesSteve Bartlett, chief of the Financial Services Roundtable.

WASHINGTON — An unexpected voice dominated a closed-door meeting a few months ago on Capitol Hill, where senior Senate aides were discussing the financial regulatory overhaul adopted last summer.

It was not a lawmaker, or even a Congressional staff member. It was a Wall Street lobbyist.

Related Links

Within minutes of arriving, Steve Bartlett, the head of a group representing 100 of the nation’s largest financial institutions, was deriding a proposal aimed at limiting the fees that banks charge retail stores on debit-card purchases.

Mr. Bartlett, wearing ostrich leather cowboy boots, barked orders to surprised Congressional staff members, urging them to delay the rule, according to two people who attended. He acted like someone running the meeting, they said, rather than like an invited guest.

Though little known outside Washington and Wall Street, Mr. Bartlett has played a pivotal role with other lobbyists in their fierce and frenetic behind-the-scenes effort that has successfully delayed or watered down many of the major regulatory changes passed by Congress in the aftermath of the financial meltdown.

Wall Street has spared little expense, spending nearly $52 million to woo Washington in the first three months of the year, up 10 percent from the previous quarter, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Bartlett’s organization, the deep-pocketed Financial Services Roundtable, itself spent $2.5 million in that period, more than any organization focused primarily on the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul law, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

Mr. Bartlett is unapologetic. As in the case of the meeting with top Senate staff members, Mr. Bartlett says he is willing to be aggressive to protect the industry’s profits from overly harsh rules. By his reckoning, Wall Street is not trying to dismantle the financial regulation enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act a year ago this month. Rather, as he explained with his Texas twang, “We are trying to reform the reform.”

That is not how critics of Wall Street see it. After being saved by government largesse, they say, big banks then moved to thwart reforms aimed at preventing future meltdowns caused by excessive risk-taking. Wall Street “should have learned that these practices threatened the global economy,” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy group. But “they’re right back to spouting the same line.”
Ted Kaufman, the former Democratic senator from Delaware who played a role in drafting Dodd-Frank, lamented Wall Street’s heavy spending in Washington, saying, “this is the most uneven battle since Little Big Horn.”

While Wall Street has lost a few skirmishes, the industry has gotten much of what it wanted. In late June, the Federal Reserve softened the cuts to debit-card fees, saving the industry billions of dollars a year. Mr. Bartlett’s group and other lobbying firms also pressed regulators to put off new derivatives regulations for up to six months, after the Treasury Department moved to excuse some of the complex securities from oversight altogether.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, according to one of its officials, is even reconsidering plans to curb banks’ control over derivatives, once seen as a cornerstone of Dodd-Frank.

Mr. Bartlett, a former Congressman who earns about $2 million a year as the roundtable’s chief executive, has helped lead the charge. As regulators put the finishing touches on nearly 300 new rules, he is glad-handing government officials, uniting financial firms and alternately charming or haranguing to make Wall Street’s case.

At one point in the battle over the debit-card fees, he said, he urged the Republican head of the House subcommittee that oversees banking to do her duty as chairwoman by introducing legislation to delay any changes. A few weeks later, he visited his friend, Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who co-authored the overhaul law, to get support for the delay.

In recent months, Mr. Bartlett’s team has gone into high gear, sending regulators some 100 letters proposing changes to soften the Dodd-Frank rules and holding dozens of meetings with lawmakers and regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other federal agencies.

In February, the roundtable sponsored “Financial Services University,” a two-day conference for Congressional staff members, where “visiting professors” gave presentations on Dodd-Frank. A top executive at Visa, the credit card giant, addressed new caps on debit card fees, according to a copy of the agenda. The associate general counsel for Bank of America discussed new mortgage regulations.

Mr. Bartlett, 63, called the event educational. “We are not here to lobby,” he told roughly 200 attendees. “We’re here to tell you what the facts are, and we think you’ll ultimately agree with us.”

The roundtable has taken a similarly direct approach with regulators. In a letter to the S.E.C., it asked the agency to reward whistle-blowers who report fraud internally before going to the government, urging that it “must be a specific factor in determining the amount of any award.” The language bore a striking resemblance to the S.E.C.’s description of the final regulation, which said working with internal-compliance departments was “a factor that can increase the amount of an award.”

Mr. Bartlett, a lifelong conservative who met his wife at a Young Republicans bake sale in high school, has spearheaded several deregulation efforts over a three-decade career as a lawmaker and a lobbyist. A member of the House banking committee in the 1980s, he led the successful push to let the market set interest rates on government-insured mortgages. He also supported legislation that allowed banks to invest in private mortgage-backed securities, the investments that eventually helped feed the real estate bubble.

After serving as mayor of Dallas, Mr. Bartlett landed the top spot at the roundtable in 1999. He said he had been hired in part to “secure passage” of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed some of the Glass-Steagall restrictions on banks set after the Great Depression. The law, signed in 1999, allowed investment banks and commercial banks to merge, creating the Wall Street powerhouses that eventually proved too big to fail during the crisis.

Mr. Bartlett’s Dodd-Frank efforts began in earnest on June 25 of last year. While a Congressional committee worked out the final details of the legislation, Mr. Bartlett’s said his chief lobbyist, Scott Talbott, sent regular e-mails on the “gory details” of the all-night session.

Around 5:40 a.m., Mr. Talbott signed off with a final, terse message: “It’s done,” which Mr. Bartlett read on his iPhone a few minutes later at his suburban Virginia home. In late July, President Obama signed the sweeping reform, which threatened to crimp lending, derivatives trading and other profit centers.

Almost immediately, Mr. Bartlett created 17 working groups — made up of lawyers, compliance officers and finance executives — to develop the industry’s position on thorny issues. The team focused on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which meets every Thursday. The derivatives group gathers at lunchtime on Fridays.

At first, the mortgage securities group could not agree on its stance about risk retention rules. Dodd-Frank requires banks that sell mortgage-backed securities to keep a small portion of the related risk on their books, excluding those containing the safest home loans. Wells Fargo called for a strict interpretation, pushing to exempt only mortgages with a down payment of 30 percent or more. Some Wall Street firms wanted no down payment requirement at all. Acting as conciliator, Mr. Bartlett is now advocating 10 percent.

“It’s taken a long time to reconcile those polar opposites,” said Mr. Bartlett.

Once armed with a strategy, the roundtable makes its pitch to regulators. Minutes after Mr. Obama chose Elizabeth Warren to set up the new consumer protection agency, Mr. Bartlett left Ms. Warren, a Harvard professor, a voicemail to congratulate her — and set up a lunch.

A week later over cold-cut sandwiches, Mr. Bartlett implored Ms. Warren to revamp the mortgage paperwork that has befuddled home buyers and has proved costly to lenders. He advised merging two lengthy documents into a simplified, one-page form. In May, Ms. Warren invited the roundtable to an early private showing of two prototypes along the lines they had discussed.

A month later, he co-hosted a farewell fete for Sheila C. Bair, the outgoing head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Ms. Bair received a faux gold watch at the cocktail party, which was attended by dozens of bankers and regulatory officials.

“He’s very good at the schmooze, and I mean that in the most flattering way,” said Camden R. Fine, the president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, another trade group.

But some fellow Wall Street lobbyists and Congressional staff members worry that his tactics can be overly aggressive at times, undermining the industry’s efforts and credibility. To help get support for the measure to delay the debit-card rules this year, the roundtable hired a consulting firm. Some bankers complained that the firm had pressured them to get on board.

Mr. Bartlett also made promises about rounding up 40 Republican votes for the delay, according to two senior Senate staff members. But only 35 materialized, and the measure was defeated.

He is not deterred. In recent weeks, the roundtable has compiled a “wrong” list, with two dozen rules to overhaul or repeal, including executive compensation disclosure and credit rating guidelines. Mr. Bartlett also plans to revisit the debit-card rule. By his estimates, the caps could cost the industry $14 billion.

“I wish I could look the other way,” he said, but added, “I’ve got 14 billion reasons to be aggressive.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=40345a49704445382f41ad21b9f54b5c

Bank of America’s Mortgage Deal Questioned

Letters sent by Mr. Schneiderman’s office to the firms that agreed to the settlement point to concerns by the attorney general that the deal may have been struck without full participation by all investors who would be affected by its terms. The letters, obtained by The New York Times, were sent to BlackRock Financial Management, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Pimco, Goldman Sachs Asset Management and 18 other parties, asking for information “regarding participation by both your firm and clients” in the settlement.

A spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman declined to comment. But this request for information is part of a broad investigation that he has begun into all aspects of the mortgage bundling process that has led to billions of losses for investors.

The proposed Bank of America settlement covers 530 mortgage pools issued by Countrywide Financial, the lender purchased by the bank in a distress sale in 2008. But the investment firms that agreed to the deal held interests in only about one-quarter of those pools, leading some investors to question its fairness. Furthermore, the proposed settlement does not allow investors who do not like its terms to opt out and bring their own suits against Bank of America. Any outstanding claims against the bank by investors who hold any of these securities would be extinguished under the deal.

The agreement could also speed up the foreclosure process, pushing more delinquent borrowers out of homes more quickly.

The terms of the proposed settlement appear to be favorable to Bank of America. Given that the unpaid principal amount of the mortgages covered by the settlement is $174 billion, the $8.5 billion to be paid by Bank of America represents just under 5 cents on the dollar. On June 29, when the deal was announced, Bank of America’s shares closed almost 3 percent higher.

A final court hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 17. One investor, Walnut Place L.L.C., has already objected to the terms of the settlement in filings made last week with the court. Earlier this year, Walnut Place sued Bank of America, contending that many of the loans in the pools it invested in breached the underwriting characteristics and other representations made by Countrywide when it sold the pools. Under the terms of the Bank of America deal, this lawsuit will not be viable.

In objecting to the deal, lawyers for Walnut Place argued that the Bank of America settlement was negotiated in secret by Bank of New York Mellon, trustee for the Countrywide mortgage pools. As negotiator, Bank of New York Mellon was also conflicted, Walnut Place contends, because Bank of America has agreed to cover all the trustee’s costs and liabilities related to the settlement.

“It is very unusual, to say the least, for a trustee that says it is representing the interests of the beneficiaries of a trust, to demand and obtain an indemnity from the very party that is adverse to that trust and its beneficiaries,” lawyers for Walnut Place wrote in its filing.

David J. Grais, a lawyer at Grais Ellsworth who represents Walnut Place, declined to comment. A spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon declined to comment. But in its legal filings the bank maintained that Bank of America was required to reimburse legal costs under the terms of the original mortgage pools.

Additional questions about the terms of the settlement were raised by Representative Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat. In a July 8 letter to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, Mr. Miller asked whether the regulator would join other investors objecting to the deal. He said the concerns of some investors that Bank of New York Mellon and Bank of America had refused to provide “information necessary to determine adequacy of the settlement.” For example, investors have been unable to review loan files to assess how many of the mortgages in the pools satisfied the characteristics and representations promised to investors who bought into them, Mr. Miller noted. “Independent investigations show that perhaps two-thirds of the mortgages did not comply with the representations and warranties,” he wrote.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3509ebef06c9c944321594bacf1e1de7

DealBook: Judge Allows Gupta’s Lawsuit Against S.E.C. to Proceed

Judge Jed. S. Rakoff, a federal judge in Manhattan.Justin Maxon/The New York TimesJudge Jed S. Rakoff

“A funny thing happened on the way to this forum.”

So opened the latest ruling from the ever-lively Judge Jed. S. Rakoff, a federal judge in Manhattan.

Judge Rakoff said on Monday that Rajat K. Gupta, the former Goldman Sachs and Procter Gamble director, can proceed with a lawsuit that accuses the Securities and Exchange Commission of violating his constitutional rights.

In March, the S.E.C. filed an unusual civil administrative proceeding against Mr. Gupta that accused him of leaking secret board discussions to Raj Rajaratnam, the head of the Galleon Group hedge fund, who was convicted of insider-trading crimes in May.

Mr. Gupta’s lawyers fired back at the S.E.C., filing a lawsuit asking to move the case to federal court. The complaint said that the S.E.C.’s administrative action denied Mr. Gupta the right to a jury trial and treated him differently than the more than two dozen other Galleon-related defendants who were all sued in federal court. (The administrative proceeding is being heard before an S.E.C. administrative law judge in Washington.)

Rajat K. Gupta, the former Goldman Sachs and Procter  Gamble director accused of leaking confidential information about those companies.Seokyong Lee/Bloomberg NewsRajat K. Gupta, the former Goldman Sachs and Procter Gamble director accused of leaking confidential information about those companies.

Judge Rakoff sympathized with the argument by Mr. Gupta that the S.E.C. potentially violated his constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

“We have the unusual case where there is already a well-developed public record of Gupta being treated substantially disparately from 28 essentially identical defendants, with not even a hint from the S.E.C., even in their instant papers, as to why this should be so,” Judge Rakoff said.

Judge Rakoff takes the S.E.C. to task throughout the opinion. He calls the agency’s decision to file the administrative proceeding against Mr. Gupta a “seeming exercise in forum-shopping.” He also says that the complaint suggests that the S.E.C. took a “cavalier approach” in approving the administrative proceeding.

“We are reviewing the decision and will proceed in a manner that maintains the commission’s authority to best serve the interests of investors and the integrity of the markets,” an S.E.C. spokesman said.

Judge Rakoff also noted that the S.E.C. had delayed Mr. Gupta’s hearing, which was originally scheduled for July 18, for six months. This will give him “ample opportunity” to decide whether the S.E.C. violated Mr. Gupta’s constitutional rights, the judge said.

The lengthy postponement in the proceeding raises questions about the fate of Mr. Gupta, the most prominent business executive ensnared by the government’s insider-trading crackdown. The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, which has been investigating Mr. Gupta’s role in the case for at least three years, named Mr. Gupta a co-conspirator of Mr. Rajaratnam’s but has not charged him criminally.

Gary P. Naftalis, a lawyer for Mr. Gupta, has called the S.E.C.’s case “totally baseless.”

Monday’s decision is the latest in a series of rulings in which Judge Rakoff has criticized the S.E.C.’s actions. In March, Judge Rakoff chafed at the agency’s practice of allowing defendants to settle cases “without or admitting or denying wrongdoing,” describing the practice as treating the court as a “rubber stamp.” And last year, in approving a deal between the S.E.C. and Bank of America over its acquisition of Merrill Lynch, he called the settlement as “half-baked justice.”

Mr. Gupta’s case is the latest major proceeding that Judge Rakoff has welcomed into his courtroom in recent weeks. Earlier this month he agreed to hear the billion-dollar action brought against the owners of the New York Mets baseball team by the trustee seeking to recover money for victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s fraud. That lawsuit was originally brought in bankruptcy court, but Judge Rakoff took control of the case.

Rakoff’s Ruling in Favor of Gupta

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e94ad0b4ca8ec075630be20f38dd3cc1

Wall St. Banks Expected to Post Weak 2nd-Quarter Results

But when the bank reports its second-quarter results this week, that hot streak will have come to an end. Analysts expect JPMorgan to count an almost 20 percent drop in its sales and trading revenues, reflecting a slowdown in investor activity and the dismal performance of its fixed-income and commodities groups.

Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are expected to report similar news. After helping prop up Wall Street during the financial crisis, core trading revenue is projected to drop, on average, by as much as 25 percent from the first quarter, according to Credit Suisse research.

That will put further pressure on the banks’ growth prospects, which are already strained by stagnant loan growth and more stringent regulation. It is also prompting nearly every major Wall Street firm to contemplate another round of layoffs amid growing concerns that at least part of the weak results are permanent.

“We are undoubtedly being impacted by lower levels of activity,” said William Tanona, a financial services analyst with UBS. “There is a lot of uncertainty out there.”

Together, the five Wall Street banks are still going to take in more than $20 billion from their core trading operations, largely from business done on behalf of clients. For example, the banks routinely help airlines hedge oil prices or bring together buyers and sellers of stock, bonds and other complex securities — often putting their own money on the line to facilitate a trade. But during the second quarter, the business was particularly hard hit.

Trading volumes fell sharply as investors became unnerved by the running debt crisis in Europe, the political standoff over the debt ceiling in the United States, and lingering concerns over the anemic growth of the broader economy. Even when investors did place their bets, they were far more hesitant to take big risks — something known on Wall Street as lacking conviction. That meant the banks missed out on the lucrative fees they can generate by selling more high-octane products, like complex options and derivatives.

Fixed-income traders, among the biggest moneymakers for Wall Street, faced a bruising market. In the commodities business, for example, oil, gold and other metals prices had been rising quickly during the early part of the year as investors anticipated high demand for materials to keep the global economy humming. But as cracks in the recovery kept surfacing, prices headed south — and traders raced to the sidelines. That left most Wall Street desks, which had stocked up on inventory to facilitate trades, holding losing positions.

At JPMorgan, for instance, energy traders were having a gangbuster year, earning several hundred million dollars for its burgeoning commodities unit. Yet when the market turned in early May, they gave back some of those gains, according to market participants. Morgan Stanley, meanwhile, suffered tens of millions in losses on its interest rate desk when a bet on lower inflation turned against the bank’s position.

Mortgage trading did not fare much better. After rallying from highly depressed values for much the last two years, mortgage-backed securities prices fell sharply during the second quarter. The reason? The government started dumping into the market its vast portfolio of mortgage bonds acquired from its rescue of the American International Group, and investors believed the outsize supply would cause values to plummet. (Only recently, when the Treasury announced it was halting its auctions, did mortgage bond prices start to stabilize.)

Although the banks have slowed the spill of red ink from troubled mortgages and other bad loans, they are struggling to increase revenue in their more traditional banking businesses, too.

New financial regulations have chipped away at once-lucrative sources of income, like overdraft charges and credit card penalty fees. Starting this fall, banks are expecting to absorb a multibillion-dollar hit when they are forced to sharply lower the fees they charge each time consumers swipe their debit cards. Higher capital requirements, meanwhile, could further depress profits if some banks are forced to lighten their balance sheets or exit certain businesses altogether.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=dd4b04a82d472b19623e881ee961bf73

DealBook: Zynga Picks Underwriters for I.P.O.

FarmVille, Zynga’s online game.FarmVille, Zynga’s online game.

Zynga, the popular online video game maker, is inching closer to another hotly anticipated initial public offering in the technology sector.

The company has picked a handful of banks to underwrite its impending I.P.O., a group led by Morgan Stanley, people briefed on the matter told DealBook on Tuesday. Other banks in the group include Goldman Sachs, Barclays Capital and JPMorgan Chase, said these people, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

CNBC, which reported news of the underwriters’ selection earlier on Tuesday, said that Zynga might file for its I.P.O. as soon as Wednesday. Some of the banks may also offer Zynga a loan of at least $1 billion, the network reported.

Zynga is expected to offer about 10 percent of its shares at a valuation near $20 billion or more, according to two people briefed on the matter. A small offering, of 10 percent or less, would follow similar technology I.P.O.’s this year. Both LinkedIn and Pandora, for instance, offered about 9 percent of their shares in their debuts.

Representatives for Zynga and the banks declined to comment.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=04252f5506d860fbec4fc2f69fd24b96