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?
Two new studies find preferential treatment for banks with political ties to the Treasury Department.
FORTUNE -- Move over "too big." There's a new knock on the mega banks: "Too connected to fail."
Two studies published in the past few weeks tackle the issue of whether big banks get special privileges because of their connections to top regulators and Washington officials.
Both studies focus on the early days of the financial crisis. The MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Oct 28, 2013 5:00 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
The regulations meant to strengthen our big banks may be leaving the U.S. with more troubled small banks.
FORTUNE -- The number of banks in danger of failing is the lowest since the beginning of the financial crisis. That sounds like good news, until you consider this: There are still 11 times more problem banks in the U.S. than there were back in early 2007, before the financial crisis. And the MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - May 31, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Consultant calls recently proposed banking regulations "weapons of mass destruction."
FORTUNE -- Call it too big to succeed.
A report about the global banking industry by Boston Consulting Group, which was released on Tuesday, says new regulations and less business will force the big banks to dramatically shrink. Of the 28 global banks the consulting firm looked at, only a few of the leading players like -- Goldman Sachs (GS), Deutsche Bank MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Apr 30, 2013 2:13 PM ET
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
Jamie Dimon needs to take a cue from J.P. Morgan's trading debacle and divide the banking giant into manageable pieces.
By Sheila Bair, contributor
FORTUNE – When I was a child, my sister and I loved watching the goings-on at a chicken farm near my grandmother's house in rural Kansas. Chickens are interesting social animals, resembling, somewhat, the way we in Washington interact with one another. They were always on the MOREMay 25, 2012 5:00 AM ET
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says his bank, the U.S.'s largest, may still be too small to succeed.
FORTUNE - Jamie Dimon can't be contained, at least not by Dodd-Frank.
At JPMorgan Chase's (JPM) annual investor day on Tuesday, CEO Dimon said he plans to continue to grow his bank, which is already the largest in the nation by assets, despite regulations and recent suggestions that JPMorgan might be worth more broken up. MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Feb 28, 2012 5:23 PM ET
Customers would benefit, the U.S. government would benefit, and - believe it or not - the big banks themselves would do better.
By Sheila Bair, contributor
FORTUNE -- America is downsizing. Whether it's the food we eat, the cars we drive, or the houses we live in, Americans are concluding that smaller is better. Even U.S. corporations are starting to see the benefit of more Lilliputian institutions; the impending -- and widely hailed MOREJan 18, 2012 10:56 AM ET
Deal talk has exchange stocks grooving. But more mergers spell disaster for markets already tilted dangerously in favor of big companies and fast traders.
Shares of NYSE Euronext (NYX) surged 14% Wednesday after the New York Stock Exchange parent said it was in advanced discussions to merge with Germany's biggest exchange, Deutsche Borse of Frankfurt. The talks come on the heels of this week's tie-up between the London Stock Exchange and Canada's TMX MOREColin Barr - Feb 9, 2011 2:12 PM ET
|America's economic mobility myth|
|Stocks: Where to make money in 2014|
|Treasury closes the book on GM bailout with final stock sale|
|Snowden docs had NYTimes exec fearing for his life|
|2 million Facebook, Gmail and Twitter passwords stolen in massive hack|