Posts tagged ‘regulation’
Ball & Chaining the Rating Agencies
After sifting through the rubble of the financial crisis of 2008-2009, Congress is spreading the blame liberally across various constituencies, including the almighty rating agencies (think of Moody’s [MCO], Standard & Poor’s [MHP], and Fitch). The Senate recently added a proposed amendment to the financial regulation bill that would establish a government appointed panel to select a designated credit rating agency for certain debt deals. The proposal is designed to remove the inherent conflict of interest of debt issuers – such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), UBS, and others – shopping around for higher ratings in exchange for higher payments to the banks. The credit rating agencies are not satisfied with being weighed down with a ball and chain, and apparently New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is sympathetic with the agencies. Cuomo recently subpoenaed Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, UBS and five other banks to see whether the banks misled credit-rating services about mortgage-backed securities.
Slippery Slope of Government Intervention
Many different professions, inside and outside the financial industry, provide critical advice in exchange for monetary compensation. In many industries there are inherent conflicts of interest between the professional and the end-user, and a related opinion provided by the pro may result in a bad outcome. If government intervention is the appropriate solution in the rating agency field, then maybe we should answer the following questions related to other fields before we rush to regulation:
- Should the government control which auditors check the books of every American company because executives may opportunistically shop around for more lenient reviews of their financials?
- Perhaps the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should dictate which investment bank should underwrite an Initial Public Offering (IPO) or other stock issuance?
- Maybe the government should decide which medicine or surgery should be administered by a doctor because they received funding or donations from a drug and device company?
Where do you draw the line? Is the amendment issued by Al Franken (Senator of Minnesota) a well thought out proposal to improve the conflicts of interest, or is this merely a knee-jerk reaction to sock it some greedy Wall Street-ers and solidify additional scapegoats in the global financial meltdown?
In addition to including a controversial government-led rating agency selection process, the transforming regulatory reform bill also includes a dramatic change to ban “naked” credit default swaps (CDS). As I’ve written in the past, derivatives of all types can be used to hedge (protect) or speculate (e.g., naked CDS). Singling out a specific derivative product and strategy like naked CDSs is like banning all Browning 9x19mm Hi-Power pistols, but allowing hundreds of other gun-types to be sold and used. Conceptually, proper use of a naked CDS by a trader is the same as the proper use of a gun by a recreational hunter (see my derivatives article).
Solutions
Rather than additional government intervention into the rating agency and derivative fields, perhaps additional disclosure, transparency, capital requirements, and harsher penalties can be instituted. There will always be abusers, but as we learned from the collapse of Arthur Andersen on the road to Enron’s bankruptcy, there can be cruel consequences to bad actors. If investment banks misrepresent opinions, laws can lead to severe results also. Take Jack Grubman, hypester of Worldcom stock, who was banned for life from the securities industry and forced to pay $15 million in fines. Or Henry Blodget, who too was banned from the securities industry and paid millions in fines, not to mention the $200 million in fraud damages Merrill Lynch was forced to pay.
At the end of the day, enough disclosure and transparency needs to be made available to investors so they can make their own decisions. Those institutional investors that piled into these toxic, mortgage-related securities and lost their shirts because of over-reliance on the rating agencies’ evaluations deserve to lose money. If these structures were too complex to understand, then this so-called sophisticated institutional investor base should have balked from participation. Of course, if the banks or credit agencies misrepresented the complex investments, then sure, those intermediaries should suffer the full brunt of the law.
Although weighing down the cash-rich credit rating agencies (and CDS creators) with ball and chain regulations may appease the populist sentiment in the short-run, the reduction in conflicts of interest might be overwhelmed by the unintended consequences. Now if you’ll please excuse me, I’m going to do my homework on a naked CDS related to a AAA-rated synthetic CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation).
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in MCO, MHP, GS, MS, JPM, UBS, BAC, T or any security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Compensation: Pitchforks or Penalties
Currently there is witch hunt under way to get rid of excessive compensation levels, especially in the financial and banking industries. Members of Congress and their constituents are looking to reign in the exorbitant paychecks distributed to the fat-cat executives at the likes of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and the rest of the banking field. According to The Financial Times, Goldman has set aside $16.7 billion so far this year for compensation and benefits and pay is on track to meet or exceed the $661,000 employee average in 2007. The public is effectively calling these executive bankers “cheaters” because they are receiving benefits they don’t deserve. The backlash resembles the finger-pointing we see directed at the wealthy steroid abusers in football or cork-bat swingers in baseball. Americans seem OK with big payouts as long as they are achieved in a fair manner. No one quibbles with the billions made by Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, but when you speak of other wealth cheaters like Jeff Skilling (Enron), Bernie Ebbers (WorldCom), or Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco), then the public cringes. The reaction to corporate crooks is similar to the response provoked by steroid use allegations tied to Major League Baseball players (i.e., Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens).
Less clear are the cases in which cheaters take advantage of a system run by regulators (referees) who are looking the other way or have inadequate rules/procedures in place to monitor the players. Take for example the outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid to the controversial AIG employees of the Financial Products division. Should AIG employees suffer due to lax rules and oversight by regulators? There has been no implication of illegal behavior conducted by AIG, so why should employees be punished via bonus recaptures? The rules in place allowed AIG to issue these lucrative Credit Default Swap (CDS) products (read more about CDS) with inadequate capital requirements and controls, so AIG was not shy in exploiting this lack of oversight. Rule stretchers and breakers are found in all professions. For example, Lester Hayes, famed All-Pro cornerback from the Oakland Raiders, used excessive “Stickum” (hand glue) to give himself an advantage in covering his opponents. If professionals legally operate within the rules provided, then punishments and witch hunts should be ceased.
Regulators, or league officials in sports, need to establish rules and police the players. Retroactively changing the rules after the game is over is not the proper thing to do. What the industry referees need is not pitchforks, but rather some yellow flags and a pair of clear glasses to oversee fair play.
Cash Givers Should Make the Rules
What should regulators and the government do when it comes to compensation? Simply let the “cash givers” make the rules. In the case of companies trading in the global financial markets, the shareholders should drive the rules and regulations of compensation. “Say on pay” seems reasonable to me and has already gained more traction in the U.K. On the other hand, if shareholders don’t want to vote on pay and feel more comfortable in voting for independent board members on a compensation committee, then that’s fine by me as well. If worse comes to worse, shareholders can always sell shares in those companies that they feel institute excessive compensation plans. At the end of the day, investors are primarily looking for companies whose goal it is to maximize earnings and cash flows – if compensation plans in place operate against this goal, then shareholders should have a say.
When it comes to government controlled entities like AIG or Citigroup, the cash givers (i.e., the government) should claim their pound of flesh. For instance, Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury official in charge of setting compensation at bailed-out companies, decided to cut compensation across the board at American International Group, Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, GMAC , Chrysler, and Chrysler Financial for top executives by more than 90% and overall pay by approximately 50%.
Put Away the Pitch Forks
In my view, too much emphasis is being put on executive pay. Capital eventually migrates to the areas where it is treated best, so for companies that are taking on excessive risk and using excessive compensation will find it difficult to raise capital and grow profits, thereby leading to lower share prices – all else equal. Government’s job is to partner with private regulators to foster an environment of transparency and adequate risk controls, so investors and shareholders can allocate their capital to the true innovators and high-profit potential companies. Too big to fail companies, like AIG with hundreds of subsidiaries operating in over 100 countries, should not be able to hide under the veil of complexity. Even in hairy, convoluted multi-nationals like AIG, half a trillion CDS exposure risks need to be adequately monitored and disclosed for investors. That why regulators need to take a page from other perfectly functioning derivatives markets like options and futures and get adequate capital requirements and transparency instituted on exchanges. I’m confident that market officials will penalize the wrongdoers so we can safely put away the pitch forks and pull out more transparent glasses to oversee the industry with.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management and its clients do not have a direct position in Goldman Sachs (GS), AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, BRKA/B, Citigroup (C), Enron, General Motors, GMAC , Chrysler, WorldCom, or Tyco International (TYC) shares at the time this article was originally posted. Sidoxia Capital Management and its clients do have a direct position in Bank of America (BAC). No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Surviving in a Post-Merger Financial World
The financial institution dominoes have fallen.
Over the last two years we have experienced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As a result, financial institutions have come under assault from all angles, including its customers, suppliers, and regulators. And as we have watched the walls cave in on the banking and brokerage industries, we have seen a tremendous amount of consolidation. Like it or not, we need to adapt to the new environment.
The accelerated change began in early 2008 with the collapse of Bear Stearns and negotiated merger with JP Morgan Chase. Since then we saw the largest investment banking failure (Lehman Brothers), and the largest banking failure in history (Washington Mutual). Other mergers included the marriage of Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, the combination of Wachovia into Wells Fargo, and most recently the blending of Smith Barney into Morgan Stanley. These changes don’t even take into account the disruption caused by the government control of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.
So what does all this change mean for consumers and investors?
1) Rise in Customer Complaints: Change is not always a good thing. Customer complaints rose 54% in 2008, and climbed 86% in the first three months of 2009 according to FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), a nongovernmental regulator of securities companies. The main complaint is “breach of fiduciary duty,” which requires the advisor to act in the best interest of the client. Making the complaint stick can be difficult if the broker only must fulfill a “suitability” standard. To combat the suitability limitation, investors would be well served by investigating an independent Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) who has a fiduciary duty towards clients.
2) Less Competition = Higher Prices: The surviving financial institutions are now in a stronger position with the power to raise prices. Pricing can surface in various forms, including higher brokerage commissions, administrative fees, management fees, ATM fees, late fees, 12b-1 fees and more.
3) Customer Service Weakens: The profit pool has shrunk as lending has slowed and the real estate gravy train has come to a screeching halt. By cutting expenses in non-revenue generating areas, such as customer service, the financial institutions are having a difficult time servicing all their client questions and concerns. There is still fierce competition for lucrative accounts, but if you are lower on the totem pole, don’t expect extravagant service.
4) Increased Regulation: Consumer pain experienced in the financial crisis will likely lead to heightened regulation. For example, the Obama administration is proposing a consumer protection agency, but it may be years before tangible benefits will be felt by consumers. Financial institutions are doing their best to remove themselves from direct oversight by paying back government loans. In the area of financial planning, proposals have been brought to Congress to raise standards and requirements, given the limited licensing requirements. Time will tell, but changes are coming.
Investing in a Post-Merger Financial World: Take control of your financial future by getting answers from your advisor and financial institution. Get a complete list of fees. Find out if they are an independent RIA with a “fiduciary duty” to act in the client’s best interest. Research the background of the advisor through FINRA’s BrokerCheck site (www.finra.org) and the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure Web site (www.sec.gov). Get referrals and shop around for the service you deserve. Survival in a post-merger world is difficult, but with the right plan you can be successful.
For disclosure purposes, Sidoxia Capital Management, LLC is an independent Registered Investment Advisor in California.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Government Looks to Strengthen Regulatory Web
As the chart from the Financial Times shows (BELOW), our messy regulatory cobweb system needs to be straightened out, so it can efficiently function. Not only to encourage risk taking and capitalism, but to also deter and punish those that take advantage of the U.S. system and its citizens. The President and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will address the inefficient, entangled set of regulatory issues surrounding the intertwined agencies in our financial regulatory system. With a mix of federal, regional, and state- driven oversight, the current structure leaves potential gaps for rule-breakers to slide through.
Source: The Financial Times
As the FT article explains (http://is.gd/13YuS), a “council of regulators,” comprised of the agency heads, will be formed along with another consumer-related agency designed to protect areas such as home mortgages and credit cards. Will new unproductive layers be added to merely bog down risk-taking and innovation (i.e., Sarbanes-Oxley legislation), or will substantive reform occur, thereby allowing businesses to innovate and grow. The proof will be in the pudding when Geithner reveals the details of his plan.
What should regulatory reform include?
1) Consolidation: You can call me crazy, but simply looking at the layers of agencies cries for consolidation. Do we really need six different sets of regulators overseeing the banks?
2) Transparency/Capital Requirement Changes: When it comes to derivatives, heightened transparency and capital requirements feel like moves in the right direction. We have perfectly functioning options and futures markets that integrate margin and capital requirements for the various constituencies; I do not see why Credit Default Swaps should be any different. For more customized, exotic over-the-counter products, you could avoid much of the AIG debacle by increasing the capital requirements of the counterparties. I believe these aims without stifling innovation.
3) FDIC of Mega-Institutions: FDIC insurance has succeeded in managing the failures of retail depository institutions, so I see no reason why the same model for mega financial institutions. Certainly, managing the collapse of a global money center bank would be more convoluted; however a system to handle an orderly failure would limit the fallout effect we experienced with the folding of Lehman and crumbling of Bear Stearns.
Although many lawmakers will hunt for a silver bullet, we all know that in this complex global economy a path for reform will involve more evolution rather than revolution. Most controversial will be the consumer protection agency, as details still remain sparse. In my a healthy regulatory system boils down to more simplified structures with tighter oversight, mixed in with proper incentives and harsher punishments for criminals. We’ll know soon enough whether the government can weave a solution tight enough to capture the Bernie Madoffs and Allen Stanfords of the world without sacrificing our position as the global financial capitol of the world.
Investing Caffeine 
