May 6, 2024

DealBook: Yahoo Is Said to Look to Allen & Co. for Strategic Options

2:47 p.m. | Updated

As it explores options for its future, Yahoo has hired Allen Company as its investment bank, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The move by Yahoo’s board follows its firing of Carol A. Bartz as chief executive, amid dissatisfaction over the onetime Internet giant’s business performance.

In its news release announcing Ms. Bartz’s ouster on Tuesday, Yahoo disclosed that its board had begun “a comprehensive strategic review” of its businesses. Within the language of the deal community, that phrase generally means possible acquisitions or asset divestitures — or possibly a sale of the whole company.

But people familiar with the board’s actions say that a sale of all of Yahoo is a “nonstarter.” What could be more likely are the sales of Yahoo’s Asian holdings or some of its communications services.

Helping to review those possibilities is Allen Company, the boutique known as a top consigliere to Internet and media companies. Among its current clients is AOL, itself the subject of takeover rumors.

The bank is also serving a lesser underwriting role for two forthcoming Internet initial public offerings, those of Groupon and Zynga.

Yahoo’s board may also look to hire additional bankers to work alongside Allen Company. Among the likely candidates is UBS, which is already advising Yahoo on a possible sale of its stake in Yahoo Japan. Another possible candidate is JPMorgan Chase, which could be brought in for its expertise in tech deals and its big balance sheet.

“Yahoo has been working with Allen Co. and UBS for some time,” a spokesman for the company’s board told DealBook in a statement.

The first task that Allen Co. may have to deal with is handling unsolicited deal inquiries. AOL’s chief executive, Tim Armstrong, has held discussions with Yahoo advisers about the company’s interest in merging, Bloomberg News reported on Friday.

A person close to Yahoo told DealBook that the company has no interest in merging with AOL, given that it’s another struggling Internet company.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ccd6db0614662706b8c3f6000407b17b

Federal Regulators Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages

Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Barclays and Morgan Stanley are among the defendants in the suits, brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, the government-backed organizations that finance much of the nation’s mortgage market.

The legal action opens a broad front in a rapidly growing attempt to force the banks to pay tens of billions of dollars for helping stoke the housing bubble. It was the collapse of the housing market that helped prompt the financial crisis in 2008, and the hangover is still being felt in the housing sector as well as the broader economy.

The litigation also marks a more intense effort by the federal government to go after the financial services industry for its alleged mortgage misdeeds. The Obama administration as well as regulators like the Federal Reserve have been criticized for going too easy on the banks, which benefited from a $700 billion bailout package shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008.

Much of that money has been repaid by the banks — but the rescue of Fannie and Freddie has already cost taxpayers $153 billion, and the federal government estimates the effort could cost $363 billion through 2013.

Even though the banks face tens of billions in legal bills from other plaintiffs, including private investors, the suits filed Friday could cost them far more. In the case of Bank of America, for example, the suit alleges that Fannie and Freddie bought more than $50 billion worth of risky mortgage securities from the bank and two companies it subsequently acquired, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial.

The filing does not cite the total losses the government wants to recover, but in a similar case brought this summer against UBS, the government is trying to recover $900 million in losses on $4.5 billion in securities. A similar 20 percent claim against Bank of America could equal a $10 billion hit.

In the suit that identifies 23 securities that Bank of America sold for $6 billion, the company “caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in an amount to be determined at trial.”

Other large banks also assembled huge amounts of so-called private-label mortgage-backed securities for Fannie and Freddie that declined sharply in value after the housing bubble burst in 2007. JPMorgan Chase sold $33 billion, while Morgan Stanley sold over $10 billion and Goldman Sachs sold more than $11 billion. A who’s who of foreign banks were also big bundlers and sellers of these securities, such as Deutsche Bank ($14.2 billion), Royal Bank of Scotland ($30.4 billion) and Credit Suisse ($14.1 billion).

In the suit filed against Bank of America, the agency alleges that bank sold securities that “contained materially false or misleading statements and omissions.” The company and several individual bankers named as defendants “falsely represented that the underlying mortgage loans complied with certain underwriting guidelines and standards, including representations that significantly overstated the ability of the borrowers to repay their mortgage loans,” the suit says. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought $6 billion in securities from the bank between September 2005 and November 2007.

The defendants include the company; several units of the bank, including Banc of America Mortgage Securities; and a dozen individuals, such as the chief executive and directors of the mortgage unit. Each defendant had a role in the process, the suit says, from buying home loans from originators to bundling those loans into securities to marketing and selling those securities to Fannie and Freddie.

The defendants vouched for key criteria behind the loans, ranging from the credit score of a borrower to the ratio of the balance of the loan to the value of the house to whether the borrower lived in the home, the suit says.

It alleges that the defendants “had enormous financial incentives to complete as many offerings as quickly as possible without regard to ensuring the accuracy or completeness (of those assurances) or conducting adequate and reasonable due diligence.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b9c1b28bedb6fea4165ef5b83b733413

Wall St. Slides After Bleak Jobs Report

Many investors had sold stocks ahead of the Labor Department’s jobs report, which analysts in a Bloomberg News survey had forecast would show a gain of 68,000 nonfarm payrolls.

The monthly report showed there was no job growth in the United States in August, and the flat performance had a direct impact on stocks in market-sensitive sectors.

The August jobs figure was down from a revised 85,000 new jobs added in July. The unemployment rate stayed at 9.1 percent in August, the department said.

Philip J. Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors, said the jobs report was “very disappointing. It was much weaker than expected. We were thinking that if today’s jobs number was poor, we would start to see a pullback.”

In addition, analysts said financial stocks were hurt during the day by the prospect that a federal agency was set to file lawsuits against more than a dozen big banks over their handling of mortgage securities. Regulators filed the suits on Friday.

The suits by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are aimed at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank, among others.

“This is not good news from the perspective of the banking sector,” Mr. Orlando said.

When the stock market opened, all three major Wall Street indexes slid lower and stayed there. The Dow Jones industrial average closed down 253.31 points, or 2.20 percent, at 11,240.26. The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index was down 30.45 points, or 2.53 percent, at 1,173.97. Both indexes ended the week lower, the Dow by 0.3 percent and the S. P. 500 by 0.2 percent.

The Nasdaq composite index ended the day down by 65.71 points, or 2.58 percent, at 2,480.33. But it managed to squeeze out a 0.2 percent gain for the week.

The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note rose 1 8/32, to 101 6/32, and the yield fell to 1.99 percent from 2.13 percent late Thursday.

Kate Warne, investment strategist at Edward Jones, said the jobs report raised fresh concerns about whether the economy might be headed for a new recession.

“Clearly, stocks are responding to the very disappointing jobs report,” Ms. Warne said. “It is one more piece of bad news that is really leading to a reassessment of the possibility of even slower economic growth.”

Though she said she did not believe there would ultimately be a double-dip recession, “the risks probably have risen.”

Financial stocks were affected by the jobs report because of its implications for the real estate market, retailing and consumer lending. The financial sector slid by 4 percent, dragging down the broader market, with the five most actively traded banks in the sector each down by 4 percent or more. Bank of America was more than 8 percent lower at $7.25. Wells Fargo was down 4 percent at $24.20 and JPMorgan was down more than 4 percent at $34.63.

Ms. Warne said that the impending lawsuits meant the banks would face additional legal troubles from lending that took place before the last recession. “There are not just concerns about weak growth, but increased worries that those problems are not behind them,” she said.

Industrial shares fell more than 3 percent. General Electric was down by 2.7 percent at $15.76. CSX was down 4.5 percent at $20.56.

Lower market results in the United States came after declines in Asia and Europe. The Euro Stoxx 50 index closed down by 3.69 percent. The DAX in Germany lost 3.36 percent and the CAC 40 in France fell 3.59 percent, while the F.T.S.E. in Britain was down by 2.34 percent. In Asia, the Shanghai, the Nikkei and the Hang Seng indexes each closed down by more than 1 percent.

“The latest fall follows a highly volatile August period which saw global markets take substantial hits over political uncertainty over the U.S. debt ceiling and subsequent credit downgrade,” John Douthwaite, chief executive officer of SimplyStockbroking, said in a research note.

In August, all three indexes in the United States turned in their worst monthly performance since 2001. Shares took a beating for reasons that included fears of an economic slowdown and fiscal problems in the United States as well as continuing concerns over debt issues in Europe.

Mr. Douthwaite said market turbulence would probably continue in September because of weak economic data from the United States and Europe.

The worse-than-expected jobs report led some economists to predict new action by the Federal Reserve at its meeting on Sept. 20-21.

Economists from Goldman Sachs said that the Fed was more likely to lengthen the average maturity of its balance sheet, with sales of relatively short-dated Treasuries and purchases of relatively long-dated Treasuries. Mr. Orlando said the central bank could also cut the premium on banking reserves to encourage banks to lend more.

Oil futures in New York for October delivery fell 2.8 percent to about $86.45. Energy related stocks declined by more than 2.5 percent.

Gold fell about 2.8 percent to $1,873.70.

Shaila Dewan and Nelson D. Schwartz contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6666a69de8fe6334cab31a4db99ecec9

DealBook: Bank of New York Mellon Chief Resigns in a Shake-Up

Robert P. Kelly, who stepped down as chairman and chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon.Jin Lee/Bloomberg NewsRobert P. Kelly, who stepped down as chairman and chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon. Gerald L. Hassell, below, is his successor.Gerald L. Hassell, the new chairman and chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon.Amanda Gordon/Bloomberg News

9:27 p.m. | Updated

Bank of New York Mellon’s chief executive and chairman, Robert P. Kelly, stepped down late Wednesday because of “differences in approaches to managing the company,” the bank said.

Pressure on the bank has been growing for months. While it has avoided the mortgage woes that have bedeviled the nation’s biggest financial institutions, it has come under scrutiny because of accusations that it and other custody banks shortchanged clients when executing currency trades for foreign transactions. In addition, Bank of New York’s performance has lagged that of its chief rival, State Street.

A spokesman for the bank said Mr. Kelly’s departure had nothing to do with the foreign-exchange lawsuits.

A person close to the board, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said that the decision was not rooted in the litigation or in any one particular issue. Rather, this person said, Mr. Kelly’s departure was the result of differences “in terms of management style.” Another person involved in the management shake-up, who was also not authorized to speak on the record, said the directors felt that Mr. Kelly was not as engaged in the day-to-day operations as they would have liked. Both people said that the rift between the board and Mr. Kelly had been brewing for some time.

Gerald L. Hassell, 59, the bank’s president and a board member since 1998, was appointed chairman and chief executive.

Bank of New York Mellon is not as well known as institutions like Bank of America or JPMorgan Chase, in part because it has no retail branches. But it is one of the world’s largest custodial banks and asset managers, with $26.3 trillion in assets under custody and administration and $1.3 trillion in assets under management. It was created in 2007 by the $16.5 billion merger of Bank of New York and Mellon Financial of Pittsburgh.

Revolving Door
View all posts

Mr. Kelly, 57, had been a candidate to succeed Ken Lewis as chief executive of Bank of America. But his talks with the bank became public in 2009 and apparently broke down over compensation. At the time, some Wall Street insiders were surprised that Bank of New York’s board did not dismiss him once it became known that he was negotiating to leave.

In December 2009, Mr. Kelly sent a note to employees saying that while he had been approached by another bank, “I firmly concluded that my place is here at BNY Mellon.”

A native of Nova Scotia, Mr. Kelly worked at Toronto-Dominion Bank for years. He was considered a candidate to one day run the bank. In 2000, however, he took a job at First Union Corporation. It acquired Wachovia in 2001, and he became chief financial officer of the combined company, named Wachovia.

He left before Wachovia made what turned out to be the disastrous decision to buy Golden West Financial, a California lender that eventually dragged down the bank with mortgages that soured. He had moved to become chief executive of Mellon Financial in 2006 and when Mellon merged with Bank of New York in 2007, he got the top job.

As an executive, he tends to fly under the radar on Wall Street. But the bank, like its peers, has had some recent setbacks.

While Bank of New York did not have the same mortgage problems as other banks, it did accept $3 billion in taxpayer money during the financial crisis. Still, it was among the first banks to pay back the money.

More recently, the bank has come under scrutiny over how it priced currency trades for some clients, including many pension funds. Several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against the bank, contending that it cheated pension funds by selecting improper prices when processing currency trades.

Jeep Bryant, a Bank of New York spokesman, said on Wednesday that the lawsuits were “completely without merit and we are defending against them vigorously.”

Mr. Kelly did not return a call seeking comment.

Shares of Bank of New York, like other financial stocks, have struggled in the last year. Yet since the beginning of the year, its shares have fallen 31 percent compared with a 23 percent decline in shares of State Street.

Alexander Blostein, a research analyst who covers Bank of New York Mellon for Goldman Sachs, said, “The announcement of Mr. Kelly’s resignation and its timing were unexpected, which introduces new uncertainty to the stock, in our view.”

“While the exact reasons behind Mr. Kelly’s departure are unclear,” Mr. Blostein said, “we believe the firm’s focus under the new leadership could shift to more aggressive cost management and business rationalization and away from acquisitions.”

Analysts say Bank of New York has underperformed State Street in part because its business is more sensitive to interest rates, and the current prolonged low interest rate environment has eaten into profits.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=fa64bf5ed68b0ab8aa403f7d35719568

DealBook: Tax Policy Change Would Bring Cash Piles Abroad Back Home

Harry Campbell

Apple has a cash problem. It’s not just that Apple has too much cash, $76 billion as of June 30. It’s rather that the bulk of that pile, estimated at $41 billion, is held abroad.

Apple does not want to bring it back to the United States for several reasons, primarily because of the tax consequences, but also because of its own growing foreign presence. Apple is not alone — this problem is an increasing one in corporate America. And the answer may not be more big, all-cash acquisitions, like Google’s $12.5 billion offer for Motorola Mobility.

In an analyst report in May, JPMorgan Chase estimated that 519 American multinational corporations had $1.375 trillion outside the United States. The problem is particularly acute among technology companies, which historically tend to hoard cash because of the cyclical nature of their business.

A recent Moody’s report noted that Microsoft held $42 billion abroad, or more than 80 percent of its cash. Cisco Systems has $38.8 billion, or almost 90 percent of its cash. Google — at least before Monday’s deal — had nearly $40 billion in cash, with more than 43 percent of it held abroad

Deal Professor
View all posts

Tax policy is driving much of this trend. For multinational corporations, cash earned abroad cannot easily be remitted to the United States. If it is paid back to the United States, it is subject to a dividend tax that can rise to as much as 35 percent. Companies are loath to pay this tax because while they can offset it with taxes paid abroad, the companies still end up paying a relatively high tax rate.

Yet it is not just a tax issue. Many United States companies want to keep cash abroad to focus on high-growth regions for investments and acquisitions.

A recent Standard Poor’s study found that 50 percent of sales by companies in the S.P. 500-stock index are outside the United States. Interestingly, the report also found that these companies paid more in foreign taxes than to the United States government. For Apple, 60 percent of its sales are abroad, and like these other companies, its foreign sales are expected to only go higher.

So, for those who expect that a change in tax policy would prompt Apple and other companies to put their cash piles to use in the United States, don’t be so sure. Even if there were no dividend tax, a large portion of this cash would stay abroad as these companies focus on higher growth overseas for investment.

Still, the current tax policy clearly distorts the practices of United States companies. One of the reasons Microsoft acquired Skype was because it was located in Luxembourg. Microsoft could use its foreign cash to make this acquisition without having to first repatriate it to the United States.

More broadly, many American companies return the cash every quarter to the United States, but then send it back abroad by quarter-end to avoid it being counted as a deemed dividend. The current tax laws thus encourage these companies to engage in cash manipulation and keep too much cash abroad.

In 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act, a tax holiday for companies to repatriate cash. The dividend tax was reduced to 5.25 percent from 35 percent. In exchange for this reduction, Congress required that any cash repatriated be invested in the United States. The cash could not be used for dividends or stock repurchases.

Alas, cash is fungible. A study of this tax holiday, entitled “Watch What I Do, Not What I Say: The Unintended Consequences of the Homeland Investment Act,” found that in the year following the act, repatriations increased by $230 billion from the previous year, to $299 billion.

Five companies alone — Pfizer, Merck, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson Johnson and I.B.M. — repatriated $88 billion, But the repatriation did not result in increased investment. Instead, companies largely repatriated the money and used their current United States holdings to pay out dividends or engage in share repurchases. This was contrary to what Congress had intended.

While the cash was not used for investment, this does not mean it did not have an overall positive effect on the American economy: shareholders went on to spend this cash. The study’s authors acknowledged this, stating that “presumably these shareholders either reinvested these funds or used them for consumption, thereby having indirect effects on firm investment, employment or spending.”

The tax holiday may therefore have stimulated the economy, although a Congressional Research Service report found that the companies that repatriated the most money actually cut jobs from 2004-6.

Still, the act also had a pernicious effect. American companies now accumulate cash and wait to repatriate these holdings, knowing that Congress will probably declare another tax holiday eventually.

Why engage in this game every few years? Congress could permanently modify United States tax policy to set the rate at a lower amount. This would be recognition that Apple and its like are multinational companies and that this problem is not going away. The world is global, and fencing off cash like this for our best companies is unrealistic.

More important, although these companies will still leave some cash abroad, more of it will come back to the United States. If it were invested, that would be terrific but not necessary as it would also end the distortions that drive even more investment abroad.

Google provided a recent example only this week with its Motorola Mobility acquisition. Google has more of its cash in the United States than other comparable technology companies since it is not a retailer like Apple.

Google is also more willing to take on debt in the United States to finance acquisitions, having completed in May a $3 billion debt raise. This was done to provide it more United States cash. Google provides anecdotal evidence that ending this distortion will end the foreign cash bias.

A permanent tax reduction would not only cut taxes but actually raise revenue, allowing for Republicans to vote for it. And it should be a holiday without restrictions — trying to force companies to invest the money rather than pay dividends is a useless exercise that will create only more bureaucracy.

Even if the money were largely spent on buybacks and dividends and a large portion were kept abroad, it would still be reasonable to expect $300 billion to $600 billion to be repatriated. This money would flow into the economy, making the dividend tax cut a stimulus package that Democrats could support.

A 2008 simulated analysis by Decision Economics found that such a reduction would raise about $50 billion a year for the federal government from the tax received and the increased growth, over a five-year period. Economic growth would be increased by up to $62 billion a year.

The Obama administration has previously been negative on such a tax reduction, but it might want to reconsider. This is the rare tax policy move that both Democrats and Republicans should be able to easily support. It is one that would allow Apple and other big American multinationals to spend money more freely, something needed in a troubled economy. It may even push Apple to finally put to use some of its gigantic cash pile.


Steven M. Davidoff, writing as The Deal Professor, is a commentator for DealBook on the world of mergers and acquisitions.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=27ecb7f5621f84ae0218e5bda98aab53

DealBook: The Trouble With Financial Stocks

Sell now — ask questions later.

That appears to be the mind-set of many nervous investors when it comes this week to financial stocks, which are down more than the broader market. Goldman Sachs is down almost 12 percent since Monday’s open. Morgan Stanley and Bank of America are both down roughly 17 percent. Citigroup dropped 15 percent and JPMorgan Chase shares sank almost 9 percent.

Some market insiders feel the sell-off is overdone. Bank executives are grumbling about it. There is nothing systemic seemingly going on here, they say. In some cases, banks have record-high capital levels thanks to recent regulatory rules requiring them to put up more capital against riskier businesses. Leverage, or how much money a firm borrows to fund its business, is down significantly since the financial crisis. An optimist may even argue these stocks are a screaming buy right now. All of the country’s biggest financial stocks are trading below book value, or crucial financial measure that refers to the liquidation value of a company’s assets if it were forced to sell everything.

So what gives? No one cares about all that right now.

“What you are seeing is the manic ‘I remember 2008’ selling,” said Glenn Schorr, a banking analyst with Nomura. “And the only thing that worked then was to get out of the way and not come back too early. The more cash they have, the safer people feel right now.”

Holders of financial stocks, burned by what happened in 2008, don’t want to stick around and see how this latest bump in the road ends, especially given the questions surrounding bank exposure to Europe, continued litigation stemming from the credit crisis and the potential impact of a possible recession, which threatens to crimp big money makers for the banks, including M.A., underwriting and beyond.

Mr. Schorr said while most banks have stated they have bought protection to hedge against their exposure in Europe, bank investors are worried it may not matter. “There may be a voluntary restructuring instead of an actual bankruptcy so the protection they have bought might not pay off,” he said.

Richard Bove, an analyst with Rochdale Securities, is downright pessimistic, saying concerns over Europe and litigation are just a symptoms of larger problem, one that is systemic.

“This is a continuation of 2008,” he said. “We are finally coming to grips with the fact we have a massive debt problem that needs to be dealt with. This is not a problem for our grandchildren. It is our problem. We have a financial system structured on a bankrupt currency and that system is now breaking down and a new system will arise to replace it, but we don’t yet anything to replace it. “

Mr. Bove said recently moved all his holdings into cash.

While everyone’s hair seems to be on fire this week, major players including Fidelity, Wellington Management and AllianceBernstein have been big sellers of financial stocks for months now, regulatory filings show. This selling points perhaps to another concern about these stocks. Financial firms, with lower leverage levels and more rigorous capital requirements, simply won’t be able to generate anywhere near the returns they did before the financial crisis. Goldman’s return on equity was just 8 percent in the second half of this year, down from more than 30 percent in 2006.

Banks argue that big shareholders are always selling in and out of their stocks. This week’s hubbub aside, the selling by some of these long-term holders suggests that concerns run deep. And even though the country’s banks are well capitalized and have significantly lowered their leverage levels since the crisis, it may be some time before investors wade in again.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=44e6c4364a046d168abf4ddd42cf9efc

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

DealBook: LinkedIn Shares Fall on JPMorgan Downgrade

The rally in LinkedIn’s share price has taken a bit of a hit from an unlikely source, one of the underwriters for its initial public offering.

Shares in the social network fell 4.6 percent on Monday, to $104.83, after analysts at JPMorgan Chase downgraded the company to neutral from overweight.

Not that JPMorgan, which co-led the I.P.O. alongside Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Merrill Lynch, has fallen out of love with LinkedIn.

“Our move to neutral here is based on valuation rather than fundamental concerns,” Doug Anmuth wrote in Monday’s note to JPMorgan clients, adding that he had a positive overall view on the company.

JPMorgan was one of several banks whose analysts initially gave LinkedIn a warm welcome to research coverage.

Mr. Anmuth, whose price target is $85 a share, wrote that the company’s risk-reward profile was better-balanced now and that there was a little less upside to the stock. LinkedIn’s shares have jumped 44 percent in the last three weeks; the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index, on the other hand, has risen just 3 percent.

To show just how richly valued LinkedIn is at the moment, Mr. Anmuth pointed out that as of Friday’s close, the company had a market value of $12 billion, while Netflix had one of $15 billion — despite the fact that Netflix has revenue and net income seven times greater than those of LinkedIn. (LinkedIn is currently valued at just under $10 billion.)

Mr. Anmuth conceded that his thesis could be proved wrong if LinkedIn blew past expectations for second-quarter earnings, which are to be announced on Aug. 4. Because less than 10 percent of LinkedIn’s shares are currently on the market, a major reult above analysts’ quarterly estimates could propel the stock price significantly higher.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f1ef2b38444ffd48312bca5fd86dc781

DealBook: Wall Street Lobbyist Aims 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 as if he were someone running the meeting, they said, rather than as 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

Stocks Retreat After Doubts on Stimulus

In a second day of testimony to Congress, Mr. Bernanke told lawmakers that the Fed was not taking more action to stimulate the economy.

That cut short a morning rally. The markets had started the day higher after JPMorgan Chase announced strong earnings and the government reported that fewer people sought unemployment benefits last week. The Dow Jones industrial average rose as much as 90 points.

Stocks had rallied for much of Wednesday after Mr. Bernanke left the door open to new economic stimulus measures, but only if the economy worsened. Investors took those earlier remarks to mean that the Fed chairman had all but guaranteed new action to stimulate the economy, said Jeffrey Cleveland, senior economist at money manager Payden Rygel.

“They realize that’s not the case now,” Mr. Cleveland said.

The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index fell 8.91 points, or 0.68 percent, to 1,308.81 in afternoon trading. The Dow fell 56.12 points, or 0.45 percent, to 12,435.49. The Nasdaq composite fell 36.22 points, or 1.29 percent, to 2,760.70.

JPMorgan Chase rose 3 percent after the bank reported that higher investment banking fees raised its net income above analysts’ expectations.

ConocoPhillips rose 4 percent after the country’s third-largest oil company said it would split in two. One company will be an oil producer and the other a refinery.

New applications for unemployment benefits fell to a three-month low last week, a sign that companies were laying off fewer workers. At 405,000, the figure is still above the benchmark that signals healthy job growth.

In a separate report, the government also said an increase in car sales and a drop in gas prices pushed up retail sales slightly in June.

Stocks were also affected by a warning on the United States debt rating as a stalemate continued in Washington over raising the government’s borrowing limit. Moody’s threatened late Wednesday to lower the American credit rating below the highest grade of triple-A, citing the risk that the government might fail to make its debt payments if an agreement were not reached by an Aug. 2 deadline.

In Europe, a threat resurfaced that Italy’s government could lose control of the country’s debt crisis. Yields on Italy’s debt jumped to their highest level since the introduction of the euro, following a bond sale. A debt default for an economy as large as Italy’s would hurt lending across the globe.

Marriott International fell 8 percent after the hotel chain said it would earn less in the full year than previously expected.

Yum Brands rose 1.2 percent after the company, which owns the Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC fast-food chains, said its earnings rose on strong international sales.

Google was scheduled to release its earnings after the closing bell.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=410a732301a981c3346d66baf6507198