jump to navigation

Only global banking regulations make sense now 2010-May-26 at 17:47 PDT

Posted by Scott Arbeit in Blog.
Tags: , , ,

Regulators Seek Global Capital Rule, by Binyamin Appelbaum, 25-May-2010

Now one of the most consequential decisions about new restraints on the banking industry — how much more capital banks should hold in their rainy day reserves — is being decided not on Capitol Hill but far from Washington, by a committee based in Basel, Switzerland.

The Obama administration is pursuing an international agreement to make banks hold significantly larger reserves, which it regards as essential to increase the stability of the global financial system. It wants to complete the negotiations, which are being coordinated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, by the end of the year.

Having tighter capital requirements only in the United States would drive investment to other places in the world through arbitrage.  The Obama Administration rightly now looks for a global consensus on a new, higher level of capital reserves for banks to prevent another global economic crisis like the one that we just experienced.

As you might imagine, the banks have reacted with shock and horror at the thought that they might need to be better capitalized:

Banks also warned that governments were piling on proposals to tax and constrain the beleaguered industry.

“The cumulative financial impact represents a level of conservatism so extreme that it will harm the banking sector, banking customers and national economies,” Wells Fargo’s chief financial officer, Howard I. Atkins, wrote in a letter to the committee.

If the “harm” is more security vs. slightly more profits for banks… I’ll take the security right now, thanks very much.

This process is inevitable after what we went through, and although I would have wished for it to be done already, it’s good that it’s moving through the system even within a few years of such systemic shock.


A flatland look at the rift between Obama and Wall St. 2010-May-25 at 12:36 PDT

Posted by Scott Arbeit in Blog.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Obama Is From Mars, Wall Street Is From Venus, by John Heilemann, 22-May-2010

The speed and severity of the swing from enchantment to enmity would be difficult to overstate. When Obama was sworn into office, Democrats on Wall Street rejoiced at the ascension of a president in whom they saw many qualities to admire: brains, composure, bi-partisan instincts, an aversion to class-based combat. And many Wall Street Republicans—after witnessing the horror show that constituted John McCain’s response to the financial crisis—quietly admitted relief that the other guy had prevailed.

Today, it’s hard to find anyone on Wall Street who doesn’t speak of Obama as if he were an unholy hybrid of Bernie Sanders and Eldridge Cleaver. One night not long ago, over dinner with ten executives in the finance industry, I heard the president described as “hostile to business,” “anti-wealth,” and “anti-capitalism”; as a “redistributionist,” a “vilifier,” and a “thug.” A few days later, I recounted this experience to the same Wall Street CEO who’d called the Volcker Rule a testicular blow, and mentioned I’d been told that one of the most prominent megabank chiefs, who once boasted to friends of voting for Obama, now refers to him privately as a “Chicago mob guy.” Do all your brethren feel this way? I asked. “Oh, not everybody—just most of them,” he replied. “Jamie [Dimon]? Lloyd [Blankfein]? They might not say Obama’s a socialist, but they come pretty close.”

For Obama, Wall Street’s cluelessness is a source of intense frustration—“He’s like, ‘What the fuck, you guys?’ ” says a White House official—and its ire toward him one of the cruelest paradoxes of his presidency. Rather than bowing to bailout rage or indulging the yearning for what Geithner calls “Old Testament justice,” Obama believes, justifiably, that he has taken a moderate approach to dealing with the financial system. On arriving in office, he chose to shore up the banks, not nationalize them. The regulations he has advocated aren’t punitive or radical. Despite the occasional burst of opprobrium, his stance has been one he summed up pithily at a meeting with the heads of the largest banks: “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

This is a solid long piece that tries to find a way to categorize the viewpoints as best as possible, while pointing out the reasonable middle ground fairly often.

From the left: “Why aren’t you putting the screws to Wall St.?”

From the right: “Anything you do that even seems to slow down anything that Wall St. does is completely anti-business.”

From the center: “Main Street is mad at the president because he’s too close to Wall Street, and Wall Street is mad at him because he’s too populist,” Altman says. “Therefore, almost by definition, he’s in the right place.”

From an Integral point-of-view, of course, we see Orange/Achiever reacting to Yellow/Strategist as if it were Green/Individualist… which is to be expected.  And we also see Green/Individualist reacting to this instance of Yellow/Strategist as if it were caving in to Orange/Achiever… which is to be expected.


Unfortunately, the Tea Partiers only view Obama through the lens of some actions that he was basically forced to take in the first few months of his administration to, oh, I don’t know, SAVE THE ENTIRE WORLD ECONOMY!  People have conveniently forgotten how bad things were at the end of 2008, and how gross the situation was that President Bush left for President Obama.

I mean, if you want to see the Orange/Achiever mindset spelled out, here it is [my italics]:

“They’re not accustomed to being engaged in politics this way,” says a private-equity investor. “Their skin isn’t toughened. They actually take [the attacks by Obama] personally. This is a profession with a lot of smart people, but who aren’t necessarily terribly introspective. They think they actually deserve to make all this money. So any attack on their livelihood is, ahem, unpleasant.”

There is no reform of Wall St. that they’ll be happy with.  Anything that takes away an opportunity to achieve short-term profits is anathema.  And, again, that’s to be expected.  But we still have to manage it from a later level of development.

I’d suggest that if you really think Obama wanted to do trillions of dollars of bailout that it’s your projection onto him.  He didn’t like it, but he didn’t have a choice, as he’s spelled out many times in many speeches, including the most recent State Of The Union.  If you were in that hot seat in the Oval Office, and were told, “Either we do this, or the world economy goes into Depression” by both conservative and liberal advisors… you’d do it too, no matter what.

Imagine a population with, say, 10% at Integral, meaning Yellow/Strategist or later, and 10% of Congress there, too.  We’d easily have the votes to reform Wall St. in a reasonable way that lets Orange/Achiever do its thing within the limits of rational regulation… which is what the Obama Administration has been supporting all along, anyway.  If you look at the final Senate bill, it’s pretty much in line with what the Administration has been supporting, without going all that far in terms of breaking up big banks.  We might see that sort of move if another one goes bad, but right now we’re taking a reasonable step forward… one that will impact the profitability of large Wall St. institutions only in areas where their activities just almost screwed the entire population of Earth.

We’re not far from getting that 10% – maybe a decade – and it gets even easier at 20%.  Hang in there….