Private Equity Investment in Banks poses Risk

The wisdom of allowing 'Private' Equity firms to invest in the regulated and highly sensitive banking sector has to be questioned. Basically these firms - which are anything but private as most of their money comes from Joe Public - are leveraged players that look for the 'exit' the moment they invest in a business. As a consequence they cannot claim to be considered serious long-term investors. In addition, the 'fund' structure allows them to escape from the restraints faced by real business companies, it gives them the opportunity to drop any of their investment companies like a hot potato if things do not work out.

Credit Derivatives: Ban speculative Buyers of 'Protection'

News that speculators are betting that municipalities and federal states in the USA may default highlights the urgent need for reform of the credit derivatives market. Not only does the ballooning of outstanding trades create a substantial risk of default by one of the participants in the market it also creates problems in the wider economy by accelerating and exaggerating real or perceived weakness in the credit ratings of various issuers. There is no reason why those without an insurable asset should be allowed to buy 'credit protection' - nothing is 'protected' and it is but a speculation on default. The argument that you need speculators to facilitate a liquid market so that  investors (banks, bond investors) with genuine reasons can protect themselves,  does not hold as you really need only SELLERS of credit protection to satisfy this requirement. So speculators are more than welcome to provide liquidity as sellers of credit protection. Adjusting legislation would mean that derivatives traded outside recognised exchanges would again be unenforceable if they are not hedging against a pre-existing risk.

Goldman most powerful Bank?

Hubris comes before the fall. The headline above illustrates the danger that companies and their managements start to believe what they read in misguided press comments. Already many years ago while we were both working there a colleague of mine said that if Goldman Sachs - or any other bank - would disappear no one would notice any difference after a few days . Markets would carry on as before and would be as serene as the sea after it has swallowed a mighty ship. A single company certainly should not be able to influence the markets - that danger should be addressed by vigilant competition authorities. Unfortunately, these bureaucrats usually at best play catch-up with developments in the markets (otherwise companies like Sky UK, Microsoft, Google and Apple would already have had their wings clipped). A more sinister danger would be if companies can exert power in the political sphere. Here the multitude of links that Goldman Sachs staffers past and present have with the US Government certainly is cause for concern. But this is just another symptom of a defect of the political system in most countries where lobbies, parties or - even worse - unelected authorities (China!) make a mockery of democracy.

Lacking CDO Disclosure: Who is to blame?

It takes two to tango. The present discussion about the alleged lack of disclosure in CDO transactions directs most of the criticism towards the structuring and originating parties in the large investment banks (and their cooperators in hedge funds). While this criticism may well be valid in some - or the majority of the cases - one should not forget that no-one was forced to buy these structured products. Any attempt at regulatory reform would be simplified if the effort would primarily be directed at the buy-side. If the list of permitted transactions would be updated so that structured products are strictly controlled the supply would quickly adjust itself - both in terms of quantity and - even more importantly - in terms of quality of disclosure.

Bank Reform: Ban on non-bank business

A dispute between the City of Berlin and Goldman Sachs raises the question of the investment by banks in non-bank businesses. More than one year after the climax of the Credit Crunch that nearly brought the World's banking system to its knees it seems that little has changed. Banks still are allowed to invest in a range of unrelated businesses - whether directly or via investment funds that they control. The slowness of the regulatory process gives little hope that a similar crisis can be prevented to occur in the future.

Financial Reform: rejoinder to Ferguson and Forstmann

We are honored by the fact that the Wall Street Journal refuses to post this comment on today's article by the ubiquitous Niall Ferguson and Ted Forstmann in which they argue that efficient capital markets, no bail-out of the banking system and the avoidance of a depression are incompatible goals. This is what we had to say to this:

"Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! The three goals CAN be addressed at the same time, it just depends on how you define the words depression economy, bail out and efficient capital markets. All these terms leave plenty of room for discussion (and disagreement). Bail-outs can be done in a phased way for example, first wipe out the shareholders (and management options and restricted stock), then impose haircuts on bondholders and large depositors. Assuming that banks in the future will face tighter regulation (limits on maturity mismatch, higher capital ratios, limits on risks by industry, geography, limits on prop trading, no non-bank investments such as hedge funds or private equity) bail-out costs will be more calculable. With respect to 'efficient' capital markets we give just one aspect where there may be disagreement with respect to an appropriate definition -does an efficient capital market have to include the ability to trade share in nano seconds at the expense of the broader investing public? Reforms are possible that leave us with capital markets that are sufficiently 'efficient' to finance business and industry."

Financial Reform Bills - the case for democratic reform

When financial reform bills are 1273 and 1336 pages long as in the case of bills that have been passed or debated by the US Congress one can only say that this is legislation run amok. I would not expect a single member of congress to pass a simple multiple choice exam about the content of these bills and as a consequence one has to assume that a lot of nonsense is being passed that will hardly improve the situation for investors or taxpayers in the country. What is demonstrated by this perverted legislative process is the need to reign in overbearing and/or incompetent governments and parliamentarians. Anyone interested in how to bring this change should visit www.dirdem.org

Fabrice Tourre: Goldman's sacrificial lamb?

News that Goldman Sachs has withdrawn Fabrice Tourre's registration with the FSA here in London leaves a somewhat sour taste. All too often employees accused of wrong-doing are immediately put on leave as soon as the allegations by this or that regulatory body comes to light. This basically is an at least partial admission of guilt against which the individual has very little redress. It is a truly Kafkaesque situation were large organizations threaten the single person who of course is in a much weaker position than the people behind the bureaucracy. The irony is, that Goldman Sachs prides itself time and again for having a team approach in all it does - so it would be particularly strange that suddenly one single individual can be the only responsible party in such a substantial transaction involving prestigious 'clients'. In Tourre's case, for example, the FSA has no prima facie evidence itself, it just is hanging on the coattails of the SEC. If Goldman Sachs has any reason to suspend Touree is would beggar belief that no one else in the whole food-chain - possibly up to CEO Lloyd Blankfein - has been involved in the transaction(s) that are the subject of the SEC's case against Goldman Sachs (which incidentally is not a case just against Fabrice Tourre).

IMF - full of bureaucrats and tax dodgers

When the IMF bureaucrats call for more taxes on the banking system one can only feel a sense of revulsion. Not enough that politicians think they have to justify their existence by dreaming up a never-ending flood of regulations and spending plans, - but with them we at least have the consolation that they are subject to elections (far too irregularly though). The bureaucrats in the IMF (and similar international organisations, including the EU) face no such threat. They have secure tenure gilded by tax-free salaries. Naturally their instinct is to tax and spend other people's money, the socialist creed that keeps them in their jobs in the first place.

Disclosure no safeguard against deception

The more complicated the securities and investment businesses become, the longer are the legal disclaimers that pepper the front and back of related documents become. No wonder the 'leading' law firms now are located in what only can be described as palatial surroundings. The (mostly) impenetrable legalese is the equivalent of a mugger telling the victim to sign a document that absolves him from risk of persecution. In a sane business environment the law should be simple and not just a starting point for lawyers on their search for loopholes. Regulations should not leave any backdoor and the laws should be included in any transaction by implication. If, for example, a conflict exists between the recommendation to buy a security and the trading position of a broker-dealer it should either be (1) irrelevant or (2) prohibited. So to 'disclose' the conflict is either unnecessary in the first case or should not be an effective way out in case of claims for compensation in the latter case.