April 25, 2024

France Details Plan to Shrink Banking Risk

“My real adversary has no name, no face, no party; it will never be a candidate, even though it governs,” he told supporters at Le Bourget, near Paris. “It is the world of finance.”

Of course, 11 months is a long time in politics. The banking overhaul bill rolled out Wednesday by Mr. Hollande’s finance minister, Pierre Moscovici, was a far cry from the tough talk of January. Les Échos, a French financial daily, summed up the general reaction in a Page One headline: “Hollande’s signature bank law project is on the rails.”

Gone is the strict separation of investment banking from the consumer, or retail, business and its insured deposit base, with banks required simply to “ring-fence” trading for their own books in separately capitalized subsidiaries that remain within the organization. And loopholes in proposed bans on high-frequency trading and agricultural commodity speculation have left those measures essentially toothless.

The banking bill fell well short of a proposal put forth by Erkki Liikanen, the governor of the Bank of Finland, that all banks on the European Union quarantine their risky trading activities. It also fell short of the strictest version of the so-called Volcker plan in the United States, which would prohibit lenders from engaging in proprietary trading altogether.

But French bankers and officials including the Bank of France governor, Christian Noyer, had argued forcefully that Mr. Hollande’s original plans would have put the country’s financial firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign rivals. Expectations for the bill had been ratcheted down in recent months.

“This isn’t reform for the sake of the banking lobby,” Mr. Moscovici said after he presented the proposal to the cabinet. “It preserves the French universal banking model that has stood the test of time.” The bill represents, he said, a campaign promise Mr. Hollande has kept.

The French Banking Federation said in a statement that the bill would “create new constraints and additional charges at an inopportune moment, when the banks must make considerable efforts to adapt to the Basel III capital rules.”

But analysts played down the significance of the measures, and shares of the biggest French banks — BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole and Société Générale — rose in Paris on Wednesday.

“It’s all mirrors and smoke,” Christophe Nijdam, a banking analyst at AlphaValue in Paris, said. “In blunt terms, this is not banking reform.”

As evidence, Mr. Nijdam estimated the proposal would require BNP, the largest French lender, to segregate activities that represented just 0.5 percent of its net banking income. In contrast, he said, the Liikanen proposal would require BNP to segregate activities that represented an estimated 13 percent of that income. The difference is important, because if the riskier activities were separated, their financing costs would rise, reducing profitability.

The bill also calls for the creation of a guarantee fund, paid for by a levy on financial institutions, that could be called on to help pay for any banking disaster.

It also gives the government greater reach. The existing Prudential Supervisory Authority would be given the power to wind up any faltering banks. A new agency, the Financial Stability Council, would be charged with anticipating systemic risks to the banking sector, and have the power to order banks to raise capital or take other measures when they encountered difficulties.

Nicolas Véron, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a research institute in Brussels, said the new resolution authority might turn out to be the most important element in the bill. “France has long had a tradition that banks don’t fail,” he said, “and this represents a significant step away from that.”

The banking bill was adopted by the cabinet but must still obtain parliamentary approval. It must also be brought into conformity with emerging European Union rules.

“I was always skeptical that France could do it alone,” Mr. Véron said, adding that it was “not suitable” for the government to be pushing for integration at the E.U. level through a banking union while pushing for a different policy at the domestic level.

On a day when Mr. Hollande was making headlines on a state visit to Algeria, it also fell to Mr. Moscovici to warn that further pension overhauls might be necessary — a revelation that carries political risk for the government.

Mr. Moscovici told RTL radio that changes to the retirement system would have to be considered, despite fixes made in 2010 by Nicolas Sarkozy, Mr. Hollande’s conservative predecessor. Mr. Sarkozy’s changes, including an increase in the retirement age by two years, to 62, were to have kept the system solvent until 2018. But a new study by a government body, the Conseil d’Orientation des Retraites, estimates the retirement plans would have a combined deficit of €18.8 billion, or $23.8 billion, in 2017, up from €15 billion last year.

The study, first reported this week in Le Monde, proposed several means of addressing the gap, including an increase in payroll deductions, a reduction in the average pension, or adding six months to the retirement age.

Mr. Moscovici also sought to play down suggestions of policy differences among members of Mr. Hollande’s government, saying it was natural that ministers would express themselves differently even though they agreed on overall direction.

Referring to the recent dispute with ArcelorMittal, in which Mr. Hollande’s governmentthreatened to take over one of the company’s steel plants, Mr. Moscovici said that temporary nationalization could be “useful” when strategic interests were in play, but could not be an end in itself. He spoke after the industry minister, Arnaud Montebourg, told Le Monde that “temporary nationalization is the solution of the future.”

“Temporary nationalization is a part of the future, not the entire future,” Mr. Moscovici said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/business/global/france-details-plan-to-shrink-banking-risk.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

High & Low Finance: New Dodd-Frank Rules Muddled by Congress That Wants It Both Ways

Both.

As the rules get written for Dodd-Frank, the financial reform law that Congress enacted last year, the essential contradictions in the law are being left to regulatory agencies to sort out. Whatever they do, you can depend on legislators to say the regulators are ignoring Congressional intent — or at least the intent of one faction or the other.

Consider the Volcker Rule, named for its chief proponent, Paul A. Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve. It prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading.

If that sounds straightforward to you, you may not have read the rule, or the new 298-page effort by regulators to figure out how to apply it. That effort produced howls of anguish from those who liked the idea of the rule, and similar reactions from those who hated it.

Some might say the equal disdain shows that the regulators are trying to steer a middle course. It might be more accurate to say they were given an impossible task.

A similar fight is going on over “skin in the game” rules for mortgage risk retention. The law says that lenders who sell mortgages to investors should retain some of the risk.

That seemed wise after the bad loans fiasco that helped bring down both the banking system and the economy.

But the law also says that those rules should not apply to especially safe mortgage loans, called qualified residential mortgages in the law. It is up to the regulators to figure out which is which.

In each case, those who want tougher rules point to the risks that came home all too clearly in 2008 and 2009. Banks and some of their customers say the economy, and bank profits, will be hurt if rules bite too deeply.

The Volcker Rule, as enacted, “generally prohibits banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading,” as the regulators stated in their opus this week. But the law goes on to provide exemptions for such things as “trading on behalf of customers,” “risk-mitigating hedging activity” and “underwriting and market-making activities.”

And there are exceptions to the exceptions. As Mary Schapiro, the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, explained, “These otherwise permitted activities are not permitted, however, if they involve material conflicts of interest, high-risk assets or trading strategies, or if they threaten the safety and soundness of banking institutions or U.S. financial stability.”

In other words, you can’t tell the difference between a prohibited activity and an allowed one just by looking at what a bank did; you have to instead divine its purpose. Then, even if the purpose is worthy, you have to decide if the risk is too high.

The logic behind the Volcker Rule is that banks are special, and should not be able to do some of the things other market players are free to do. Banks are special because they benefit from government-insured deposits. Big banks are even more special because if they gamble and lose, it may be the government that ends up with the loss, via a bailout.

But banks also provide a lot of services beyond just taking deposits and making loans. Customers want those services to continue to be available.

The rules proposal this week does not claim to be complete. The document lists 383 questions for those commenting on the proposal to consider in recommending changes. Some of those questions have multiple queries. Here’s one example:

“Question 19. Is the exchange of variation margin as a potential indicator of short-term trading in derivative or commodity futures transactions appropriate for the definition of trading account? How would this impact such transactions or the manner by which banking entities conduct such transactions? For instance, would banking entities seek to avoid the use of variation margin to avoid this rule? What are the costs and benefits of referring to the exchange of variation margin to determine if positions should be included in a banking entity’s trading account? Please explain.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1c08f8cd8921d04bdbd55a2cb9400449

DealBook: Regulators Advance Volcker Rule

Agencies working on the Volcker rules, from left, John Walsh of Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Ben S. Bernanke of the Federal Reserve, Mary L. Schapiro of the S.E.C. and Martin Gruenberg of the F.D.I.C.Jonathan Ernst/Reuters and Alex Wong/Getty ImagesAgencies working on the Volcker rules, from left, John Walsh of Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Ben S. Bernanke of the Federal Reserve, Mary L. Schapiro of the S.E.C. and Martin Gruenberg of the F.D.I.C.

Federal regulators on Tuesday took a much-anticipated step toward reining in risky trading on Wall Street, introducing a proposal that would prohibit federally insured banks from making certain types of bets with their own money.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation unanimously approved an initial version of the so-called Volcker rule, a centerpiece of the sprawling regulatory overhaul known as Dodd-Frank.

The rule would both limit banks from investing in hedge funds and ban proprietary trading, a major profit center where banks trade for their own benefit rather than for clients. It is named for Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who championed the rule as a way to avert future bailouts of Wall Street, which nearly collapsed during the financial crisis.

John Walsh, a member of the F.D.I.C. board and head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said at an F.D.I.C. meeting on Tuesday that he was “delighted” regulators had reached an agreement on the proposed rule, “given the controversy that has surrounded this provision — how it addressed root causes of the financial crisis.”

President Obama and Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, at an event in July.Charles Dharapak/Associated PressPresident Obama and Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, at an event in July.

Several other federal agencies must still vote on the proposal, which will be open for public comment until January. The Securities and Exchange Commission is scheduled to vote on Wednesday. And on Tuesday morning, ahead of the F.D.I.C.’s vote, the Federal Reserve released the proposed rule for public comment. A final version of the rule will take effect by July 2012.

“I expect the agencies will move in a careful and deliberative manner in the development of this important rule, and I look forward to the extensive public comments that I’m sure will follow,” Martin J. Gruenberg, acting chairman of the F.D.I.C., said during the meeting.

The flurry of activity kicked off what is sure to be a lengthy and contentious battle over the esoteric details of the Volcker rule. Much of the debate has already centered on controversial exemptions to the rule.

While the regulation prevents big banks from placing bets on many stocks, corporate bonds and derivatives, it exempted trading in government bonds and foreign currencies.

The rule also provides a path for getting around the ban, for instance, when banks hedge against losing money while carrying out a customer’s trade. Market-making and underwriting are exempt, too, though the line is often blurred between these pure client activities and proprietary bets.

Indeed, the Volcker rule highlights the fuzzy nature of proprietary trading. Most big banks like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America shut down their stand-alone proprietary trading desks once Dodd-Frank became law last year.

But proprietary bets often slip into client-focused activity. Banks, as part of routine market making, can buy securities from one customer with the intent of selling them to another client. The proposal on Tuesday attempted to draw the line between such legitimate market-making and proprietary trades, when a bank’s stake exists solely to benefit its own account.

The proposal, in defining market making, largely tracks the metric laid out in an earlier report by the Financial Stability Oversight Council. It also sketched out a framework for detecting proprietary trading, relying on a litany of calculations, including revenue figures. Regulators plan to scrutinize positions in a bank’s trading account, typically trades held for less than 60 days.

Wall Street has mounted a united front against the rule, saying it would eat into profits and constrain liquidity at a difficult time for the banking industry. Those concerns were echoed on Monday by Moody’s, which issued a report saying the current version of the Volcker rule would “diminish the flexibility and profitability of banks’ valuable market-making operations and place them at a competitive disadvantage to firms not constrained by the rule.”

Some Democratic lawmakers and consumer advocates, however, are pushing to close certain loopholes in the rules, particularly the broad exemption for hedging. Volcker rule proponents take issue with a plan to excuse hedging tied to “anticipatory” risk, rather than clear-and-present problems.

“Unfortunately, this initial proposal does not deliver on the promise of the Volcker Rule or the requirements of the statute,” said Marcus Stanley, policy director of American for Financial Reform, an advocacy group.

Each side also disagrees over how to enforce the rule. The proposal spells out an expansive internal control regime that banks must adopt, putting the onus on the industry to police its own trading. Under the rule, banks must turn over a battery of information to regulators, including nearly two-dozen metrics to gauge whether a bank is helping clients or trading for its own benefit.

For now, regulators stopped short of forcing bank C.E.O.s to certify the legitimacy of their compliance program. Instead, executives must only “review the effectiveness of the compliance program.” The proposal asked the public to comment on the the possibility of “C.E.O. attestation” and the use of data warehouses, where regulators could keep an eye on the trading.

The F.D.I.C. vote was somewhat anticlimactic, after a version of the rule was leaked to the media last week. The 205-page document outlined much of the regulatory minutiae surrounding the Volcker rule, with only minor changes appearing in the longer draft released Tuesday.

The proposal left many details to be developed in coming months. It posed hundreds of questions for the public and the financial industry to address, leaving the window open for significant changes.

“The vagueness of the proposal, and the hundreds of questions it includes, also demonstrate that we are still in the middle of this process,” said Mr. Stanley. “It’s important to use this opportunity to strengthen the rule – and to prevent Wall Street lobbyists from weakening it still further.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4d25caf9b0c02eae647cb7a814716940

DealBook: Gundlach Found Liable for Trade Secret Theft, but Gets Back Pay

Jeffrey Gundlach, chief of DoubleLine.Jessica Rinaldi/ReutersJeffrey Gundlach received a mixed verdict in his fight with TCW.

2:23 p.m. | Updated

A bitter corporate feud came to an end on Friday, as a jury found Jeffrey E. Gundlach, a star fixed-income manager, liable for breaching his fiduciary duty and stealing trade secrets at his former firm, Trust Company of the West.

But the jury delivered a mixed verdict as it also awarded Mr. Gundlach $66.7 million as the result of a counterclaim that he was owed fees from the funds he oversaw.

Jurors deliberated for just two days before finding Mr. Gundlach and three co-defendants liable for taking trade secrets from TCW, as Trust Company of the West is known, and breaching his fiduciary duty to investors. They awarded no damages to TCW on the breach claim.

The judge in the case will determine the damages in the trade secret claim.

The verdict, announced in Los Angeles County Superior Court, capped a trial that lasted nearly two months and captivated the mutual fund world. TCW had claimed that Mr. Gundlach and his associates took client information and proprietary trading systems in order to set up a competing firm, DoubleLine Capital, after he was fired in December 2009. The jury found that Mr. Gundlach had misappropriated that data, but found that he had not acted maliciously in doing so.

TCW gained an important symbolic win in the jury’s finding that Mr. Gundlach and his co-defendants were liable.

“We came in here focused on basic principles and wrongful conduct. We brought three claims, and the jury found liability on all three claims,” said Susan Estrich, a lawyer for TCW.

However, Mr. Gundlach’s lawyers pointed to the $66.7 million award as a victory.

“We are pleased that the jury agreed with us that neither Jeffrey Gundlach nor any of our clients did anything that resulted in monetary harm to TCW. We’re equally pleased that the jury awarded Mr. Gundlach and our other clients the wages that were owed to them,” said Brad Brian, a lawyer for Mr. Gundlach.

Mr. Gundlach, dressed in a pinstripe suit with a bright orange tie, was seated next to one of his co-defendants, Barbara VanEvery, as the verdict was read.

Although lawyers for both sides claimed victory after the verdict, some industry watchers said that the lack of damages for TCW’s claims meant the verdict had favored Mr. Gundlach slightly, although neither side had landed a knockout blow.

“This divorce has been messy, and it’s a good thing that the investment teams can now go back to managing portfolios without this distraction hanging over them,” said Miriam Sjoblom, a bond fund analyst with Morningstar. “To the extent DoubleLine shareholders were worried about damages from this suit impacting the resources of the firm, this verdict should assuage those fears.”

Mr. Gundlach was known as “the bond king” at TCW, where he worked for 24 years and was named fixed-income manager of the year in 2006 by Morningstar for his fund specializing in mortgage-backed securities.

As his star rose, former colleagues say Mr. Gundlach’s ego grew as well. Witnesses in the trial described him as a “cultural cancer” who berated colleagues and disparaged his bosses, Marc I. Stern and Robert A. Day, calling them “dumb and dumber.” In closing arguments, lawyers for TCW queued up a slideshow of some of Mr. Gundlach’s greatest hits, including e-mails in which he referred to himself as “the Pope” and referred to Philip A. Barach, his co-manager, as “the B team.”

After being fired from TCW in December 2009, Mr. Gundlach got DoubleLine up and running quickly, bringing more than 40 members of his fixed-income team over to the new firm. It has grown quickly, amassing $15 billion in assets in less than two years.

TCW, a unit of the French bank Société Générale, struggled in the immediate wake of Mr. Gundlach’s departure. The firm lost $25 billion in assets after Mr. Gundlach left, even though it acquired a competitor, Metropolitan West, to replace his team.

Today, TCW is on the mend. It has about 600 employees, and the firm’s assets under management have grown to $120 billion. In a fact sheet distributed to reporters during the trial, the firm claimed that it has gained “a more collegial, collaborative workplace culture” since firing Mr. Gundlach.

Mr. Gundlach, a math prodigy who has claimed he only does The New York Times crossword puzzle on Saturdays and Sundays because the other days are too easy, said in an interview last month that undergoing an ugly legal battle with his longtime firm had damaged his view of human nature.

“I didn’t realize how twisted people were,” he said.

The trial, which began in July, resembled a white-collar divorce case. Lawyers for TCW accused Mr. Gundlach of conspiring to sabotage his firm, comparing him to Gordon Gekko, the fictional buyout villain played by Michael Douglas in Wall Street. Mr. Gundlach’s lawyers, in return, asserted that TCW had plotted to fire him for months, and that it wanted to save money on the lucrative fees it owed him.

After the verdict was read, Judge Carl J. West thanked jurors for serving in the trial, which included long slogs through arcane financial terminology.

“It is an imposition, and you are to be commended for your service,” Judge West said, according to a live feed provided by CourtroomView.

TCW was represented in the case by the Los Angeles law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan. Mr. Gundlach and his co-defendants were represented by Munger, Tolles Olson.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=cce63ff952043cef7a02a2ef4fc0d9df