By Sheila Bair
FORTUNE -- Hark. Do you hear it? That sound of ringing bells coming from the nation's capital as we enter the holiday season? Is it Salvation Army Santas taking to the street corners? Church campaniles playing "Carol of the Bells?" Or maybe angels getting their wings a la the Christmas classic It's a Wonderful Life?
Nope. It's the ka-ching of K Street lobbyists ringing up the billable hours as they pile into the newest industry battle against financial reform. I am speaking of nascent efforts to regulate the multi-trillion dollar asset management industry. This war promises to be even bigger than the one megabanks have waged against the Volcker rule's proposed ban on speculative trading.
The shot heard 'round the beltway was a seemingly innocuous report by a government research group called, appropriately, the Office of Financial Research or "OFR." The OFR was created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law to -- among other things -- conduct and sponsor research related to "financial stability." That seems reasonable after the 2008 financial crisis nearly brought down the world economy.
The OFR was asked by its parent agency, a group of major financial regulatory heads called the Financial Stability Oversight Council or "FSOC," to look at potential risks associated with asset managers. These entities -- which include mutual funds, private equity and hedge funds, as well as the asset management divisions of insurance companies and banks -- collectively control about $53 trillion of assets. Ten firms each individually control over $1 trillion in assets with the largest, by far, being BlackRock (BLK), which manages $4.1 trillion.
While acknowledging the lack of complete data to conduct the analysis, the OFR report had, I thought, some useful observations about things asset managers do that are frighteningly similar to the kinds of things that banks did in the lead-up to the financial crisis. You know, things like excessive leverage (yes, a number of them do use significant leverage to enhance returns), taking big risks to reach for yield, mismatching assets and liabilities, and putting assets in separate accounts that are not transparent to regulators or their public investors.
Was the report perfect? No. Is anything? But its primary purpose, as I understand it, was simply to help FSOC look outside of the regulated banking system to learn more about the business and activities of asset managers so it could determine if there were any risks that might threaten markets and the economy. That is what the FSOC and OFR are supposed to do.
People love to beat up on the big banks (and I do my fair share), but believe it or not, they were not the root of all evil in 2008. Asset managers and insurance companies also created significant problems. As you will recall, taxpayers had to risk trillions in government support to bailout both the American Insurance Group, a.k.a. AIG (AIG), as well as the money market/mutual fund industry. What's more, it is important to understand that when we bailed out the banks, we also bailed out these nonbank institutions, as some were heavily invested in bank debt or were standing on the other side of bank derivatives trades. Without the bank bailouts, these nonbanks could have taken big losses.
Yet, based on the fund industry's holier-than-thou attack on poor OFR, you would think they were trying to protect Cindy Lou's Christmas against the evil Grinch. The industry's biggest fear seems to be that this report is the precursor to the FSOC designating big firms like BlackRock and Fidelity as "systemic" meaning (gasp) that they would be subject to tougher regulation by the Federal Reserve Board.
I think the industry is jumping to conclusions. If I were they, I'd save my money for employee Christmas bonuses and tell the lobbyists to stand down. The FSOC is only beginning to analyze the issues identified in the OFR report, and there are many different ways the regulators could respond. Some of the issues could be addressed with better disclosure. Others, like leverage and liquidity, could be addressed with some simple, basic standards set by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC already regulates the big asset managers to protect those who invest in their funds. The agency has not, traditionally, looked at this industry from the standpoint of broader risks to the financial system, but that doesn't mean it couldn't start.
True, the FSOC might ultimately decide that some individual asset managers are too big and interconnected to fail without disrupting the broader economy. But the answer is not necessarily to designate them as "systemic" and push them into the arms of the Fed.
A better alternative would be for those firms to become simpler, smaller, and less interconnected. Dodd-Frank's "systemic designation" was meant to put large firms on the government's "naughty list." Intrusive Fed supervision was meant to be their lump of coal. Under the law, they still have the option of getting on the "nice" list of un-systemic institutions by restructuring and downsizing.
Now wouldn't that be a nice Christmas present for us all?
Federal Reserve's big bank stress tests go secretive.
FORTUNE -- Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase pose no threat the economy. How do we know? Beats me.
Late Monday, the Federal Reserve said that the two giant banks had officially passed their annual stress tests. The actual tests, which are supposed to assess whether the nation's biggest banks could survive another financial crisis, were conducted late last year. The results were initially MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Dec 2, 2013 5:41 PM ET
Where are the bankers involved with JPMorgan's dubious mortgage deals? At JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and other Wall Street firms.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 27, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Stephen Cutler says bank regulations and fines are getting out of control.
Clarification: 11/22, 5:40 PM
FORTUNE -- Apparently, JPMorgan Chase's top lawyer has some hurt feelings over his bank's recent $13 billion fine.
Stephen Cutler, speaking Friday morning at an industry conference, fired back at the government and said that the regulation of banks is spiraling out of control. He said regulators are wasting taxpayers' resources by piling on infractions and issuing MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 22, 2013 2:39 PM ET
Bank fines are little more than a mechanism for transferring wealth from the bank's workers and customers to public coffers, and they fail to address the problem of how to rein in Wall Street excess.
By Sanjay Sanghoee
FORTUNE -- Here is an odd thing. Despite the massive legal problems JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is facing, including a potential $13 billion payout looming in its future, and blistering criticism by the press MORENov 14, 2013 11:07 AM ET
How much will Twitter have to make in profits to pay for the $1 billion it left on the table?
FORTUNE -- Twitter's debut as a public company stunningly illustrates that two of the most baffling customs in the investment business are back in full force. Both are hallmarks of frothy markets that typically retreat in tough times. The first is Wall Street's preferred IPO process that enriches the banks and MOREShawn Tully, senior editor-at-large - Nov 8, 2013 12:52 PM ET
In a new filing, the bank reiterated that it's not worried about future legal expenses.
FORTUNE -- Morgan Stanley is either the cleanest bank on Wall Street, or it's living in denial.
Talk of JPMorgan Chase's $13 billion settlement has dramatically upped the expectations of what banks may pay to put the financial crisis behind them. On Thursday, in a regulatory filing, Goldman Sachs (GS) estimated it may spend $4 billion more MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 8, 2013 5:00 AM ET
In the Fed's worst case scenario test, the nation's unemployment rate leaps to 11.3%, house prices fall by 25%, and the Dow Jones industrial average plunges nearly 50%.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 1, 2013 2:18 PM ET
The Wells Fargo wagon is pulling into profit town. It won't stay for long, though.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 1, 2013 12:43 PM ET
Why is the Justice Department fighting the bank just so it can hand a pile of money to hedge funds?
FORTUNE -- The Justice Department's proposed $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase over mortgage misdeeds has stalled, and the issue appears to be this: Who should pay for WaMu's poo?
The Justice Department says JPMorgan (JPM). JPMorgan says an FDIC trust. The correct answer may not be the one you think.
Here are MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Oct 31, 2013 1:58 PM ET
|2 million Facebook, Gmail and Twitter passwords stolen in massive hack|
|Pentagon to cut jobs, contracts by $1 billion|
|Ron Paul: Bitcoin could 'destroy the dollar'|
|A new normal for government retirees|
|Top 10 U.S. cities for Chinese homebuyers|