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.
Proposed Volcker Rule hasn't stopped some of Goldman's trading businesses, and that could be a problem.
FORTUNE -- Goldman Sachs earned $1.4 billion in the third quarter, down 23% from the second. It maybe shouldn't have even earned that much.
Unlike other banks, Goldman (GS) has been slow to shut down businesses that could soon be forbidden by the so-called Volcker Rule. Named after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, the rule was MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Oct 17, 2013 2:31 PM ET
With the Volcker Rule stuck in the gate, Goldman Sachs did what it thought was best. It ignored it.
FORTUNE -- It has no been more than 2½ years since President Obama signed the Volcker Rule into law, as part of the broader Dodd-Frank financial reform package. And in that time Wall Street bankers have learned a very important lesson: Don't be too quick to honor Washington's wishes.
The Volcker Rule was MOREDan Primack - Jan 22, 2013 5:00 AM 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
The Volcker Rule is having an impact, even though it hasn't been finalized.
FORTUNE -- When private equity firm Catalyst Investors began raising its third fund in early 2011, it quickly found that many of its past investors didn't want to re-up. Not because of performance, but because they were banks and other financial institutions that felt constrained by a part of the so-called Volcker Rule.
"The banks had been investing in MOREDan Primack - Aug 15, 2012 2:14 PM ET
At the heart of JPMorgan's $2 billion whale of a trading loss was a deeply flawed belief.
FORTUNE -- If you want to understand the ill-fated trade that has cost JPMorgan Chase (JPM) more than $2 billion and counting, all you really need to understand are three words: Negative carry trade. And what you need to understand about those three words is that they are dirty - really, really dirty.
In general, MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - May 15, 2012 6:01 AM ET
Bash JPMorgan all you like, and feel free to snicker at the spectacle of Jamie Dimon losing his swagger. But don't confuse Morgan's mess-up with the supposed need for the Volcker Rule. By Allan SloanAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - May 11, 2012 1:13 PM ET
More than 16,000 comments were filed to the SEC on the proposed Volcker Rule, but don't expect the debate to end just because the comment period is over.
By Moshe Silver, Hedgeye
The Volcker Rule is scheduled to go into effect in July, just five months from now. This is good news for folks who want a Volcker Rule, but it may be even better news for folks who desperately do not MOREFeb 29, 2012 1:05 PM ET
The financial industry is besieged by protestors. It's also facing a slow-growth world and a wave of new regulation. In order to flourish again, the big firms must first change in painful ways.
By Geoff Colvin, senior editor-at-large
FORTUNE -- The brighter side of financial cataclysm wasn't easy to see in late 2008 -- the crisis was at its most acute, and no one knew if Armageddon lay ahead -- but Barney MOREDec 12, 2011 5:00 AM ET
It's time for our financial institutions to get back to basics: making money off good customer service - not wild speculation.
By Sheila Bair, contributor
FORTUNE -- Financial reformers are pointing to the collapse of the $41 billion MF Global brokerage house as evidence of why we need Dodd-Frank's "Volcker Rule" to prohibit FDIC-insured banks and their affiliates from making proprietary bets on the markets. Fortunately, MF Global was not a bank or MOREDec 9, 2011 5:00 AM ET
|America's economic mobility myth|
|Treasury closes the book on GM bailout with final stock sale|
|Where should you put your money now?|
|Snowden docs had NYTimes exec fearing for his life|
|The economy: The 2014 outlook|