Bernanke: Too big to fail a “pernicious” problem

Reuters

Regulators must be “significantly tougher” on large and complex financial firms to limit wider risks, but big firms are still needed to keep the global economy humming, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Saturday.

Bernanke told an Independent Community Bankers of America conference that the problem of some firms being perceived as “too big to fail” is among the “most insidious” barriers to competition in financial markets.

“As the crisis has shown, one of the greatest threats to the diversity and efficiency of our financial system is the pernicious problem of financial institutions that are deemed ‘too big to fail,’” he said.

“It is unconscionable that the fate of the world economy should be so closely tied to the fortunes of a relatively small number of giant financial firms,” he added.

Reform proposals that would limit the scope and activities of financial institutions “are worth careful consideration,” the Fed chief said. Supervisors should be empowered to limit large firms’ involvement in “inappropriately risky activities,” he said.

Bernanke, however, was clear that big financial firms still play a vital role, saying that a “technologically sophisticated and globalized economy” needs “large, complex, and internationally active financial firms.”

The challenge is to make sure their size does not insulate them from market discipline, he said.

Bernanke’s comments come less than a week after Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd unveiled a regulatory reform proposal that would put the U.S. central bank in charge of overseeing banks and important financial firms with assets greater than $50 billion.

The Fed already has authority over big banks, but lacks power over nonbank financial firms, such as insurer AIG, which was one of the firms at the center of the global financial crisis.

The Dodd bill would also give the Fed the power to break up big firms that could threaten the stability of the financial system if they get into trouble.

Bernanke laid out a three-pronged approach favored by the Fed on how to tackle the problem of firms that are so big and interconnected that markets believe the government would step in if they faltered.

The issue of moral hazard, or that expectations of government intervention encourages risky activities, became a subject of intense scrutiny as the global financial crisis escalated.

“First, we develop and implement significantly tougher rules and oversight that serve to reduce the risks that large, complex firms present to the financial system,” Bernanke said.

He noted that the Fed has been working with its counterparts overseas on requiring that so-called “systemically important” firms hold bigger capital and liquidity buffers.

Secondly, the Fed is working on efforts to make the financial system more resilient should a firm fail, Bernanke said. Thirdly, a new legal framework that enables the government to wind down large failing firms is needed, he said.

Bernanke said the idea of requiring systemically important firms to develop “living wills,” which would outline how they could be wound-down in an orderly way, “is worth exploring.”

The Fed chairman also continued his pushback against Dodd’s plan to hand over the Fed’s supervision of thousands of smaller banks to other regulators.

Bernanke said the Fed’s close connections with community bankers give the Fed a more forward-looking and detailed perspective on the economy that is often lost in economic data.

The grass-roots information also gives the Fed a broader understanding of risks facing the economy, such as the problems in commercial real estate lending, he said.

“A supervisory agency that focused only on the largest banking institutions, without knowledge of community banks, would get a limited and potentially distorted picture of what was happening in our banking system as a whole,” he said.

Share

GMAC Bailout Could Cost Taxpayers $6.3 Billion, Says Watchdog

DANIEL WAGNER, Huffington Post

The Treasury Department sank billions into auto finance giant GMAC Inc. without an exit strategy or proof the company was viable – a decision that could cost taxpayers $6.3 billion, a new watchdog report says.

The government said the $17.2 billion bailout was a necessary step to save troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler. GMAC provides critical financing to auto dealers, who borrow to finance their fleets until the cars can be sold to consumers.

Yet GMAC faced far fewer conditions than the bailed-out automakers, the report says. When the automakers were rescued, they were forced into bankruptcy. Shareholders lost their investments, creditors took a hit and executives were forced to detail plans for making the companies viable.

GMAC was treated more like banks that received bailouts without having to explain what they were doing with the money, the report says.

The report was released Thursday by the Congressional Oversight Panel overseeing the $700 billion financial bailout that Congress passed in October 2008.

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/gmac-bailout-could-cost-t_n_494564.html

Share

Obama Foreclosure-Prevention Plan Lagging, New Data Shows

Shahien Nasiripour, Huffington Post

Only about a third of the homeowners who have successfully completed the trial period of the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program have been offered permanent relief, according to new federal data obtained by the Huffington Post.

The conversion rate — about 33 percent — is woefully short of what the Treasury Department had forecast. Treasury thought the rate would be “ranging up to 75 percent,” Herbert M. Allison Jr., assistant secretary for financial stability, told the Congressional Oversight Panel in October.

The other two-thirds of homeowners who have gone through the trial program and made the necessary payments remain in limbo. Some of those homeowners — more than 350,000 of them — will ultimately lose out on the kind of relief the administration has repeatedly promised: averting foreclosure through lower monthly payments.

“I remain very concerned about the relatively small number of conversions from trial to permanent modifications for homeowners,” said Richard H. Neiman, New York’s superintendent of banks and a member of the COP, in an email to HuffPost. “Hundreds of thousands of homeowners are left in limbo by [mortgage] servicers and [are] once again at risk of foreclosure.”

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/obama-foreclosure-prevent_n_492376.html

Share

Are TARP Funds Being Used To Fund Cheap Overseas Call Centers?

From Banking Horror Stories

Yesterday afternoon a client of mine and I had to call JP Morgan Chase about the whereabouts of his file MFI-Miami requested 2 months ago. After being told quite adamantly that my client would have to pay $10 per document we were requesting (that’s a subject for another article I’m working on) and after I threatened this customer service agent with everything short of telling him he was one phone call away from getting a human booster shot from a guy named Jamie, we realized we were calling a call center in the Philippines and the guy was unaware of who Jamie was.

As soon as I got back to the office to brief my assistant about the client’s file and she hands me the phone to help her talk to a customer service person at Citimortgage.  After talking to this heavily accented woman for about 10 minutes, I asked her where she was located and she tells me the Philippines.  I talked to other members of my staff and they tell me they get the same thing except Wells Fargo and American Home Servicing routes the calls to India.  American Home Servicing Agents in India get angry pretty fast when you demand to speak to someone at an American call center in Texas or California.  I had one guy lose it and scream at me in Bengali or Hindi, I couldn’t tell which.  The women in my office say the only major bank that doesn’t route their calls to Asia is Bank of America.

The experiences my office has had with dealing with these call-centers mirrors the complaints that I have heard from my clients on a daily basis for the past 18 months.  Complaints that have become more and more frequent since congress passed TARP in September of 2008.

So at the risk of sounding like I come from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan, I have to ask, are TARP funds that were given to these banks by you and I, the American taxpayer, being used to employ cheap labor in developing nations and are these call-centers using child labor? Why aren’t Americans being employed to fill these positions?

I contacted both Citigroup and J.P. Morgan – Chase’s press office and surprisingly enough my calls did not get forwarded to the Philippines.  I had to leave messages and have not heard back.  I would say the chances of me getting a return phone call are about as likely as a customer service manager calling me back from a mortgage servicer.

I find it odd that no one in Washington has asked these questions especially someone like John Dingell or Tom Harkin.  You would think members of congress especially pro-union members would be fighting and clamoring to get these call-centers in their districts in this economy just for bragging rights. Is it just another sign that congress is out of touch with what is going on outside the beltway?

<a href=”http://www.blogcatalog.com/directory/business/finance/” title=”Finance Blogs – BlogCatalog Blog Directory”><img src=”http://www.blogcatalog.com/images/buttons/blogcatalog5.gif” alt=”Finance Blogs – BlogCatalog Blog Directory” style=”border: 0;” /></a>

Share