FORTUNE -- Wall Street may have a bigger Volcker problem than it's letting on.
Most Wall Street firms have spent the past few years shedding businesses that clearly don't comply with Volcker, which is supposed to limit the banks' ability to make money on risky, in-house trading. What's more, most big bank CEOs say their firms have been Volcker-compliant for a while now.
Nonetheless, this week's vote on the Volcker rule, which is supposed to come on Tuesday, has some worried. Bloomberg reported that the nation's five Wall Street firms -- JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Goldman Sachs (GS), and Morgan Stanley (MS) -- generate as much as $44 billion a year from trading. A lot of that money, though, is not really at risk. That number includes some of the fees the firms get from executing clients' transactions. That business is not banned by Volcker.
It looks likely that the final rule could ban so-called portfolio hedging, which are broad trades that are supposed to protect a bank against a macro-risk, like an economic downturn. JPMorgan has said the failed London Whale trade, which lost the bank $6 billion, was a portfolio hedge.
But banks will still be allowed to hedge. There could be some good news for the banks in the final rule. The draft of the rule said that all non-client trades had to be "reasonably correlated" to offset a risk the bank was taking for a client. Some advocates of more Wall Street regulation pushed for that to be reworded to "highly correlated."
But, sources say, in a win for Wall Street, that the final rule regulators will vote on next week says nothing about correlation. That requirement is out all together. Instead, regulators will use other measures to try to limit non-customer trading. It's not clear those measures will be effective.
Also, the $44 billion figure is down significantly from what it was before financial reform law Dodd-Frank was passed, despite the fact that the stock market has come back and the bond market has been relatively stable. That suggests that the big banks have jettisoned much of their non-client trading businesses.
Still, the question is how much of that $44 billion is generated by the big banks in trading that will eventually be banned. Surely, when the final rule is enforced by regulators, it will be more restrictive than the way in which banks have been policing themselves.
And the impact will be bigger for some firms than others. In a research note out last Wednesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Betsy Graseck said Goldman would be the most affected among Wall Street banks. Goldman declined to comment.
Goldman has traditionally made more of its money trading than other Wall Street firms. And a big drop in its currencies business in the past quarter has reignited concerns about Goldman's trading operations.
Graseck says that Goldman generates about half of its revenue from trading. Another 17% of its revenue comes from direct investments, some of which are made through Goldman private equity or hedge funds. The Volcker Rule is expected to significantly limit how much money banks can put in those investment vehicles as well. And my colleague Dan Primack has detailed how Goldman has been slower than other banks to exit those investments. All told, Graseck says Goldman is at risk of losing 25% of that revenue because of the Volcker Rule, or nearly 17% of its overall revenue.
But the impact could be larger than that. Unlike other firms, Goldman does not break out the profits it gets from its various lines of business. Typically, trading revenue tends to be more profitable than other lines of business. So, a 17% drop in revenue coming from that business could lead to a bigger drop when it comes to the actual bottom line, say 20%.
Like other banks, Goldman has struggled to get its return on equity, a key metric for financial firms, back to where it was before the financial crisis. Last quarter, Goldman's ROE was just over 10%. The hit from Volcker could take Goldman's ROE down to 7% next year, well below the 20% it used to regularly report before the financial crisis.
"The question is whether Goldman takes on more directional risk than others, and whether they will still be able to do it," says Glenn Schorr, an analyst at Nomura. "It's a fair question."
One answer: Every quarter, firms report a figure called value at risk, which is supposed to track how much money a bank stands to lose trading each day. Goldman's VAR is down from what it was a few years ago. But it is still higher than most of its rivals. In the most recent quarter, Goldman's VAR averaged $80 million. That compares to an average of $68.5 million at Goldman's closest rivals, suggesting that Goldman is conducting riskier trading than Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, and others.
That might not be the case. Many say VAR isn't a reliable stat, and firms have leeway in how they report it. Goldman doesn't disclose enough about its business to figure all this out. But with the Volcker Rule now back on track, we may soon find out.
The largest asset managers should become simpler, smaller and less interconnected.
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 MOREDec 4, 2013 12:41 PM 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
Some are saying it was extortion. Others are saying it was unfair. But Jamie Dimon, the head of the U.S.'s largest bank, knows what he is doing.
FORTUNE -- A lot of people are questioning whether JPMorgan Chase's reported fine of $13 billion to settle claims that it misled investors in mortgage bonds is excessive. It would, after all, be the largest settlement any single bank has ever paid to regulators.
But MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Oct 21, 2013 3:40 PM ET
With a reported $13 billion settlement, JPMorgan has put the rest of the banking industry at risk of further government attacks, and it has raised the bar for potential fines from the big banks.
By Cyrus Sanati
FORTUNE -- JPMorgan's reported $13 billion settlement with U.S. authorities over shady investment practices sets a precedent that could have ghastly consequences for the bank, as well as for its main rivals. In rolling MOREOct 21, 2013 10:22 AM ET
Did Jamie Dimon just make another mistake in JPMorgan's legal battles?
FORTUNE -- On Friday, JPMorgan said that it had put aside $23 billion to cover future fines and legal bills. Even beyond the size, the disclosure was an unusual one. Banks don't typically say how much they have to cover legal bills. And it's the first time that JPMorgan has ever disclosed the number.
Bank executives have long said they won't MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Oct 11, 2013 2:36 PM ET
Unlike today's problems, tomorrow's headaches can't be cured by writing a few checks.
FORTUNE -- People tend to spend way too much time worrying about what's in the headlines and not enough time worrying about things, buried in small type, that are less obvious but lots more important. Today's case in point: J.P. Morgan Chase.
JPM (JPM), as we'll call it, has been playing the role of piñata for plaintiffs and regulators MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Oct 9, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Why haven't JPMorgan's legal issues done more to dent the stock?
FORTUNE -- Call him the Teflon Dimon.
On Thursday, the day after news broke that JPMorgan Chase may have to pay the government at least $11 billion in fines -- the largest single financial fine in history -- its shares rose. Perhaps one of the biggest oddities of JPMorgan's past year and a half is how the stock has done. Despite MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Sep 27, 2013 11:08 AM ET
Assets at the six largest U.S. banks are up 37% from five years ago. What happened?
FORTUNE -- One third of all business loans this year were made by Bank of America. Wells Fargo funds nearly a quarter of all mortgage loans. And held in the vaults of JPMorgan Chase is $1.3 trillion, which is 12% of our collective cash, including the payrolls of many thousands of companies, or enough to MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Sep 13, 2013 11:42 AM ET
|America's economic mobility myth|
|Tech firms call on U.S. to reform spying activities|
|American Airlines, US Airways to form largest air carrier Monday|
|Snowden docs had NYTimes exec fearing for his life|
|Someone bought a $100,000 Tesla with Bitcoins|