FORTUNE -- How risky is Goldman Sachs? Don't ask. Executives won't tell you.
On a conference call with analysts on Tuesday to announce first-quarter earnings, which beat expectations but still somehow disappointed, Goldman's CFO Harvey Schwartz was asked about a key measure that tracks how many potential risky securities or loans the bank has. Had it risen or dropped? Schwartz's response: We aren't saying.
Goldman (GS) doesn't have to. Dodd-Frank, the banking reform law passed in the wake of the financial crisis, doesn't require Goldman and other big banks to begin using the measure Schwartz was asked about for another few years. Nonetheless, nearly all the big banks began regularly disclosing the new figure of so-called risk-weighted assets, known as Basel 3, last year. Goldman is the only holdout.
The question of how much risky trading Goldman still does has been an issue in the wake of the Federal Reserve's recent stress tests. While Goldman passed the stress test, it was one of two banks, the other was JPMorgan Chase, that was asked to resubmit its capital plan despite otherwise getting a thumbs up from regulators. The Fed said it had some issues with Goldman but didn't say what.
CEO Lloyd Blankfein has repeatedly said the firm has closed its proprietary trading unit. And the firm's own numbers suggest it has cut back risk.
Still, the Fed's stress test estimated that Goldman could lose $25 billion from bad trades if we were to enter another financial crisis, more than any other bank the Fed tested. The fact that Goldman remains the only bank that's not reporting the new measure adds to the mystery and skepticism of the firm's claims that it has been cutting its risk levels.
Goldman does disclose an earlier figure that Dodd-Frank is phasing out. That measure of risky assets, known as Basel 1, appears to have risen pretty dramatically, up 20% or $80 billion, in the the first three months of the year to $480 billion, after dropping for much of 2012. But a source at Goldman says much of the jump has to do with a switch in the way the figure was calculated this year, not a reflection that Goldman is loading up on risky assets. Regulators required Goldman and others to make the change -- an interim step toward implementing the full Dodd-Frank measure in the next year or so.
Other banks also showed a jump in risky assets as a result of the change in the calculation. But not as much as at Goldman. At JPMorgan (JPM), the measure rose by 10%. At Citigroup (C), the figure jumped by 14%.
What's more, those other banks have been much more transparent about how much risky assets they have under the new Basel 3 rules. At JPMorgan, that measure of risky assets rose slightly in the first quarter. At Citi, the figure dropped.
Goldman did disclose that it had $728 billion in risk-weighted assets based on the way Dodd-Frank measures it at the end of the third quarter. That's the only time the firm has disclosed that number. At that time, its ratio of capital to those risky assets was 8.5%. Goldman now says that capital ratio has risen to 9%. But in the past six months, Goldman has earned about $5 billion. Add that to its capital, and it appears that Goldman's risky assets have grown as well, and now stand at about $740 billion.
All this might explain why Goldman's stock fell $2.36, or just over 1.6%, to $144 Tuesday even after the company reported strong earnings. Left in the dark, how can Goldman's investors know whether it's safe to stay?
A small Fed tax will do little to rein in big banks.
FORTUNE -- For the big banks, the Federal Reserve's stick remains pretty rubbery.
When Dodd-Frank, the banking reform law passed in the wake of the financial crisis, was originally envisioned, co-author Congressman Barney Frank, members of the Obama administration, and others believed the new rules would encourage banks to shrink by making it too expensive to remain big. That, they MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Apr 16, 2013 5:00 AM ET
New financial regulations could squeeze small banks out of the mortgage market.
FORTUNE – For all the gripes on Wall Street over how heavily financial reforms stemming from the financial crisis will eat away at profits, the little banks on Main Street may end up hurting most.
In the latest criticisms over new international banking rules, Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke recently suggested that regulators consider separate rules for the more than MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Nov 14, 2012 11:29 AM ET
Wall Streeters say Obama's second term will be the death knell for small banks.
FORTUNE -- Do we need to worry about Too Small to Survive?
Now that President Obama has been re-elected, analysts, consultants and dealmakers have turned from whether Dodd-Frank will be repealed to what it means for banks now that it's likely here to stay. The overwhelming conclusion: Thousands of small banks will soon disappear.
Emmett Daly, a Sandler O'Neill MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 9, 2012 1:59 PM ET
We don't need the Volcker Rule. So let's finalize it.
By Rick Jones, contributor
In the world of magical realism that produced Dodd-Frank, I have had energy for only a bit of remote intellectual annoyance over the impact of the part of the Rule commonly known as "Volcker."
Among the joys of the Volcker Rule -- and there is much, much more here to celebrate or loath -- is a limitation on the ability of a MOREOct 17, 2012 4:27 PM ET
Since Dodd-Frank, small banks have grown more profitable.
FORTUNE -- In Wednesday's presidential debate, Mitt Romney said President Obama was both the banking industry's make out partner and grim reaper. Neither were meant as a compliment.
In a response to a question about regulation, Romney said Dodd-Frank, the set of banking reforms that Obama pushed for and Congress passed in the wake of financial crisis, was an example of a law that's MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Oct 4, 2012 4:16 PM ET
With the benefit of hindsight, the co-author of post-Enron's definitive financial reform has a change he wishes he could make.
By Becky Quick, contributor
FORTUNE – "No law is perfect." True words. But not exactly what I expected to hear from Mike Oxley, the former Republican congressman who penned the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation with former senator Paul Sarbanes, a Democrat. A decade after enactment of the eponymous regulation, created in response to MOREAug 22, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Revenue from the firm's own investments fell 90% in the second quarter.
FORTUNE -- It's no London Whale, but, like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs (GS) had its own trading flop.
Goldman's stock traders lost $112 million of the firm's own money in the second quarter. It's not even in the same tank, or really ocean, as JPMorgan's $5.8 billion loss, but it was a huge drop from the nearly $900 million in MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jul 17, 2012 1:04 PM ET
JPMorgan Chase's CEO says his bank's hedges are safe.
Fortune -- In banking, it appears, the model is always risk on.
In Congressional testimony on Wednesday JPMorgan Chase's CEO Jamie Dimon spent a lot of time trying to prove to members of the Senate Banking Committee that the bulk of what his bank does - London Whale aside - is prudent. He said he believes in stress testing. And that he has MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jun 13, 2012 3:45 PM ET
Elite money manager Paul Singer is a passionate defender of the 1% and a rising Republican power broker. He's determined to put a candidate who shares his views back in the White House.
By Michelle Celarier, contributor
FORTUNE -- As he gears up for the final stretch in the marathon that is the Republican nomination campaign, Mitt Romney has no shortage of eminent financiers to call on -- for advice or money. MOREMar 26, 2012 5:00 AM ET
|Fill 'er up at Blu ... with natural gas|
|John Kapon: Have bottle, will travel|
|Bloomberg's lazy Apple bias|