More

Trillion-Dollar Banks Could Get Bigger Under Financial Overhaul Law

First Posted: 01/18/11 11:50 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

Earns Jpmorgan Chase

WASHINGTON -- The nation's four biggest banks can grow even bigger, with the potential to add at least another trillion dollars onto their balance sheets before they even reach the limits imposed by the Obama administration, according to an administration study released Tuesday.

Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law overhauling financial regulations, calls for regulators to impose a ten percent cap on individual financial firms' liabilities relative to the entire system. The rule is intended to prevent lenders from becoming so large that their collapse would threaten the health of the broader financial system.

Firms that hit that cap are not supposed to be able to grow through mergers or acquisitions, and banks that wish to get that big by gobbling up a competitor shouldn't be allowed to.

But the report, issued by the council of regulators that is supposed to keep watch for breakdowns in the financial system, calculates the formula in such a way that it leaves the largest U.S. lenders with plenty of room to grow. For example, JPMorgan Chase, the nation's second-biggest bank by assets, can merge with U.S. Bancorp, the 10th-biggest lender, and still fall comfortably under the limit.

"I said the banks won," said Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund who now teaches at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management and is a HuffPost contributing business editor. "It just tells you what the Treasury wants, and what they're telling you is they're going to cook it to let these banks expand."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner heads the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which produced the study and accompanying recommendations. They're intended to guide regulators as they craft the rules that will attempt to restrain the growing concentration in the nation's financial system.

The big four banks, which collectively hold about $7.7 trillion in assets, or just about half of the entire banking system, originate and service roughly three out of every five home mortgages; hold about 35 percent of all deposits; and control about 44 percent of all credit card purchases, according to the council.

Just nine years ago, it took 15 banks to control half of the assets in the nation's banking system, according to the Federal Reserve.

In its study, the council said that limiting concentration will make the financial system more stable, efficient and competitive, and reduce implicit subsidy large firms receive when the market perceives them as too big to fail.

"Over the long run," the study states, "the concentration limit can be expected to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. financial markets by preventing the increased dominance of those markets by a very small number of firms."

It's unclear which firms will actually be limited by it, though.

Using the study's calculations, JPMorgan, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- the second-, third- and fourth-largest U.S. banks -- could all acquire huge lenders like U.S. Bancorp, PNC Financial Services, Capital One Financial, and SunTrust Banks, the 10th-, 11th-, 13th- and 15-biggest banks.

Even Bank of America, which comes closest to the 10 percent ratio at 9.2 percent, could acquire a firm like Fifth Third Bancorp, one of the biggest lenders in the Midwest.

The reason why JPMorgan, Citigroup and others don't yet meet the 10 percent threshold is because of the way their liabilities are calculated.

Rather than taking their assets and deducting their capital, the formula calls for regulators to compensate for the relative riskiness of those assets, called risk-weighting. For example, because Treasuries are judged to be safe, they have a low risk-weighting. Complex financial instruments like certain derivatives, though, have a higher risk-weighting.

Bank of America has $2.34 trillion in assets, according to the most recent quarterly data filed with the Federal Reserve. But its risk-weighted assets total just $1.48 trillion, or 37 percent lower.

And big banks could get even bigger.

The council has the authority to designate certain financial firms that aren't banks as systemically important, meaning their failure could pose a risk to the entire financial system. For example, AIG would have been one such firm, regulators say.

Once the liabilities of these firms are added in, the pool of assets the banks would be judged by grows larger. According to the study, JPMorgan has about 7.1 percent of the system's liabilities. Once AIG-like firms are added, JPMorgan's ratio could shrink, enabling the lender to acquire its slightly smaller competitors.

"When you're in charge of writing the rules you get what you want," said Johnson, who's been critical of the administration's approach to ending Too Big To Fail. "This is what Treasury wants, and they want to give the bankers everything."

Johnson is among a group of finance experts who's advocated for the break-up of the nation's largest lenders. Others include Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City; James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Fed; and Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed.

Reached after normal business hours, a Treasury Department spokesman declined to comment.

A measure that would have forced the country's financial behemoths to shrink failed in the Senate last year. Instead, the administration pushed for this concentration limit.

But while size is important, it's not the only factor, said John H. Cochrane, a finance professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

To Cochrane, size and other risk factors could be offset if banks simply held more capital to guard against losses. Banks typically have about $1 in capital for every $10 they lend out or invest. For the biggest banks, it's usually just $0.50.

"Even with 10 percent of the system's assets, with their extreme leverage, that sounds pretty dangerous to me," Cochrane said. "Banks need lots more capital -- way more than they have now."

The council's study confidently says that over time megabanks will be constricted from expanding through mergers and acquisitions. And once the final rules are written, regulators could take a tougher line.

For now, the limits don't apply to firms like JPMorgan Chase.

*************************

Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The nation's four biggest banks can grow even bigger, with the potential to add at least another trillion dollars onto their balance sheets before they even reach the limits imposed by t...
WASHINGTON -- The nation's four biggest banks can grow even bigger, with the potential to add at least another trillion dollars onto their balance sheets before they even reach the limits imposed by t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,661
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (38 total)
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
SitandStay
Lorenzo&BushH8ter
03:26 AM on 01/25/2011
Credit Unions?

I don't see banks as being an entity for the middle class after this year.
At some point the assets of these bohemoths will have to be audited.....that will be interesting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MerrieWay
09:30 PM on 01/24/2011
Scary monopoly...as we see under 1% savings account interest...plummet to 0%...or interest will soar elsewhere and our savings will be depleted. Ugh!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Sta
09:25 PM on 01/24/2011
and yet Obama still has a 54% approval rating,from the oppressed taxpayer, his approval rating for big banks is 99.9%
07:48 AM on 01/21/2011
Of course they will get bigger-that was the plan all along.
Americans suffer-----business grows fat.
The Democrats elected the best REPUBLICAN
president they could have.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:56 AM on 01/21/2011
So does anyone think that this legislation was NOT written by the mega-banks FOR the mega-banks?
Come on, folks, figure it out.
We're being rolled and mugged by the ruling-class...
12:16 AM on 01/21/2011
Our taxpayer funds are managed by the Fed, a privately held organization comprised of major banks as the shareholders. This set up provides for banks to reap huge profits from our money with very little responsibility or return to us, the faceless investors.
Here's part of how it all works:

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans.

The total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans

Banks and other financial institutions can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:25 AM on 01/21/2011
Fractional Reserve Banking is the biggest scam on the planet.
It allows these parasites to rob us blind...
Thanks for that well said and thoroughly thought-out post...
F&F
photo
Ronni01
"Edit your micro-bio"--I think not!
03:30 PM on 01/20/2011
Time and time again we see how our government works for the banks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
stargazer13
To Love One Is To Love All
01:48 PM on 01/20/2011
well now we know who has all the money !!
08:55 PM on 01/19/2011
THINK. Most well established churches do receive a,( freebie ), from the IRS via tax relief. Indeed, the government determines to what extent pastors, etc; will commit, in order to keep cash on hand,( banking.

Obviously, tax monies paid into IRS are raided by anyone who ressurects a god from amidst many,
totem too.. These gods should be sorted out and
given identification on W2 forms.This is honesty.

Actually, everyone is taxed to a hound's tooth.
Millions of hard working citizens are bled. Why are their tax monies looted for any church; if these people pay no homage to established kingdoms? Isnt'this a legalized combination of church and state. Only the ignorant and super ignorant would view this in any other manner.

Searching for thousands of years asserts that
any and all established systems in worshiping
allied the various dominating ruling classes, as some god or gods are well heeled by the state. Incidentally, Socratese was slain because he too,like hogorina, questions tax monies used to fatten clergymen of questionable principles.

Socrates was a genuine democrat, far from a pseudo republican in his day. Yet, he questioned
the state's method in allying with strange totem
pole upstarts from raiding the state's treasury, many do in America, because citizens were deprived,looted,of their wealth.

The Constution clearly implies church and state
separation. Why are tax payers forced to pay homage to any religion that they collectively abhor. Dr. Jill, please do not give the bum's rush on this one!
08:48 PM on 01/19/2011
THINK ! Most well established churches do receive a,( freebie ), from the IRS via tax relief. Indeed, the government determines to what extent pastors, etc; will commit, in order to keep cash on hand,( banking.

Obviously, tax monies paid into IRS are raided by anyone who ressurects a god from amidst many,
totem too.. These gods should be sorted out and
given identification on W2 forms.This is honesty.

Actually, everyone is taxed to a hound's tooth.
Millions of hard working citizens are bled. Why are their tax monies looted for any church; if these people pay no homage to established kingdoms? Isnt'this a legalized combination of church and state. Only the ignorant and super ignorant would view this in any other manner.

Searching for thousands of years asserts that
any and all established systems in worshiping
allied the various dominating ruling classes, as some god or gods are well heeled by the state. Incidentally, Socratese was slain because he too,like hogorina, questions tax monies used to fatten clergymen of questionable principles.

Socrates was a genuine democrat, far from a pseudo republican in his day. Yet, he questioned
the state's method in allying with strange totem
pole upstarts from raiding the state's treasury, many do in America, because citizens were deprived,looted,of their wealth.

The Constution clearly implies church and state
separation. Why are tax payers forced to pay homage to any religion that they collectively abhor. Dr. Jill, please do not give the bum's rush on this one!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:38 PM on 01/19/2011
Same ol' story. Brace for the crash/crumble ... apologies to all countries we shove the concept of democracy down your throat. American gov't is as corrupt as any other...democracy becomes a laughable term. If Obama really cared, he would not have signed these bills in 2010 and would have reinstated Glass-Steagall type law and protected the global community at large. The banks lobbyists purchased this limp legislation for a hefty price.
07:36 PM on 01/19/2011
this article misses the larger point...

there are 1500 trillion in derivatives that were created and spun off by the banks beyond their assets and spread sheets...

of course the notional value of these derivatives does become real when derivatives default, then they play the default swap card like they did with mortgages, which explains why they did not just use the 800billion tarp to pay of the mortgages that they claim caused the crash ...they wanted to cash-in the swaps first...and government mortgage help after the crash ..phooey! total fiction! ....and of course they waited until after their competition tanked before they changed the mark to market rules. and its all legal cause they changed the laws as they went to match or rather excuse the crimes. ...but then savvy is a word derived from pirate dialect.

The biggest pirate booty in history, that's what it all amounts to.
06:28 PM on 01/19/2011
When ever the government medals into the economy it backfires and the taxpayer citizens get left holding the bag. Real Estate is a great example. Over a decade later we are still suffering from the Community Reinvestment Act( Sub Prime Mortgages). Real Estate may never recover from it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:47 PM on 01/19/2011
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm
FRB: Speech--Kroszner, The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

"...Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.6

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis..."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shane Nahumko
Let them eat iPads!
07:01 PM on 01/19/2011
Yeah, I hate it when the government 'medals' in things. I much prefer it when they don't get a gold, silver or bronze and leave it all to the banks and other corporations!?!

http://www.theendisalwaysnear.blogspot.com/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barry Dennis
Social Solutionist; economic realist
04:01 PM on 01/19/2011
Rather than thinking in terms of assets and weighted risk, and similarly relatively unimportant measures of bank stability and risk, we need to think strictly in terms of Equity. Requiring substantial increases in equity, either though earned and re-invested equity capital, or though equity capital additions, and instituting Prudent Man risk management policies (like limiting leverage of borrowed money, and limiting investments in any one class or issuer to ten percent of that class of risk within the bank) would insure that bank "owners" take the primary risk. Owners will tend to hire "managers" who prudently, no matter how aggressively or strategically, undertake the management of risk with an eye to knowing their own financial health is also at risk.
This would also make sure that the owners are the totality of loss exposure, not the taxpayers, as is now the case. Now, they get to have their "cake" _their bonuses and salaries- and eat it too-backstopped by taxpayers, with no reward for our risk.
If we don't get our financial house in order, and continue to be "conned" by banks and financial institutions that "risk and leverage are good, good, good' without offsetting transparency and risk management, we are asking for more of the same, sooner,rather than later.
Financial markets are already "over-weighted" in our GNP, and the risk increases accordingly.