More

Capital One Merger Presents Federal Reserve With 'Too Big To Fail' Test

Too Big To Fail

First Posted: 09/18/11 12:31 PM ET Updated: 11/18/11 05:12 AM ET

(ALEXANDRA ALPER, Reuters) - Consumer groups will try to convince the Federal Reserve this week that rubber stamping the Capital One Financial Corp (COF.N) takeover of ING Groep NV's (ING.AS) online banking unit would prove that "too big to fail" is alive and well.

The Fed is holding the first of three nationwide hearings on Tuesday on the $9 billion deal that observers are characterizing as a test case for how the U.S. government will view big-bank mergers after the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

During the crisis, U.S. taxpayers extended multibillion-dollar bailouts to large banks whose failure could have brought the financial system to its knees.

Last year's Dodd-Frank financial oversight law did not force regulators to break up big banks, but instructed them to closely scrutinize future mergers.

Capital One stands to become the 7th-largest U.S. bank with more than $320 billion in assets if it acquires ING and HSBC Holding Plc's (HSBA.L) U.S. credit card business, which it announced in August, according to SNL Financial.

"It is one thing for a $20 billion bank to fail. We'll feel a ripple, there will be hand-wringing," said John Taylor of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, who has led the charge against the merger and will testify in Washington on Tuesday. "When a $300 billion bank fails, that is a threat to our system."

Tuesday will mark the Fed's first public hearings on a merger since Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) acquired Countrywide in 2008.

Representative Barney Frank, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, last month said the deal needed a tough review and asked the Fed to hold public hearings.

"An important subject like this ought to be dealt with with as much chance for public input and as transparently as possible," Frank said in an interview with Reuters.

Community groups are eager to weigh in.

"(The Fed has) signaled that 'too big to fail' is a very serious issue," said Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate at Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "I hope they are shaken by their failure to prevent the financial crash."

DOES SIZE EQUAL SYSTEMIC?

Dodd-Frank requires U.S. regulators to now take systemic risk into account when evaluating a merger, in addition to public benefit, concentration of resources, unfair competition and other factors.

McLean, Virginia-based Capital One gets over half of its revenue from credit cards and would access about $80 billion in deposits and 7 million new customers from ING.

Some industry experts say the deal could produce benefits.

Karen Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, said the merger would make Capital One less risky by diversifying the credit-card focused company and giving it more access to capital.

She also pointed out that the Dutch government -- which bailed out ING in 2008 -- told it to sell its U.S. portfolio.

"The only entities that can acquire so large a portfolio are big banks," she said. "Size is not a good criterion of systemic risk."

Some community groups will testify on Tuesday in support of the merger.

But Taylor says neither company has a good enough track record to be trusted with growing larger.

Capital One, "had to be bailed out, they are buying another bank that had to be bailed out even more and they have essentially a mono-line approach to banking, which means all their eggs are in one basket," he said.

Capital One received a federal bailout of about $3.5 billion during the financial crisis, while ING received about 10 billion euros from the Dutch government.

Capital One has vigorously defended the merger. Last week, chief executive Richard Fairbank said the deal does not create enough systemic risk to warrant scrapping it.

"If you look at the criteria for systemic risk, the answer is no, no, no, no, no on the long-list of items," Fairbank said at the Barclays Capital financial services conference in New York.

The Fed has signaled it will take a nuanced approach in its review.

In a speech on September 15, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo said the Fed will not automatically block mergers if they increase risk to the financial system.

"While Congress instructed us to consider the extent to which a proposed acquisition would pose a greater risk to financial stability, it clearly did not instruct us to reject an acquisition simply because there would be any increase in such risks," he said at a conference hosted by the Federal Reserve.

(Editing by Andre Grenon)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
(ALEXANDRA ALPER, Reuters) - Consumer groups will try to convince the Federal Reserve this week that rubber stamping the Capital One Financial Corp (COF.N) takeover of ING Groep NV's (ING.AS) onli...
(ALEXANDRA ALPER, Reuters) - Consumer groups will try to convince the Federal Reserve this week that rubber stamping the Capital One Financial Corp (COF.N) takeover of ING Groep NV's (ING.AS) onli...
Filed by Alexander Eichler  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 421
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Symphysodon
08:34 AM on 09/20/2011
Very simple solution. Simply Forbid Banks and Credit Card Companies from operating across state lines.
photo
mariusvinchi
Saint Lucia is looking better and better every day
08:03 PM on 09/19/2011
All of these "to big to fail" institutions should be broken up into bite sized chunks. No one company should be so large as to constitute a national economic security threat!
If broken up along the same lines as AT&T into the "Baby Bells" it will actually increase their individual value over time. It's a win win! Win for shareholders; a win for the "marketplace" by increasing competition; finally, a win for American taxpayers who are on the hook for bailouts when they play fast and loose with depositors money.
Taking it to the next logical step, the FED needs to tighten ratio rules and require larger on hand deposits. Allowing banks to "borrow" essentially free money from the FED with one cent on the dollar in collateral is anathema to common sense!
As a side benefit, banks will be less likely to risk lending any additional money to that perpetual bankruptcy also known as Donald Trump...I really want to see him pony up to food line at my soup kitchen.....
photo
scott7841
PDD 51 is not a vitamin...just a bitter pill
01:50 PM on 09/19/2011
4 years ago I had a bank executive tell me that the plan by the government was to have all banking controlled by 5 - 10 major lenders.........no more small community banks or credit unions. Well, here we are and it appears the information was accurate. Obama has taken over Freddie and Fannie and now has people working on a plan to turn all foreclosed homes insured by these two turned into government housing in which the tenant will pay their rent to the government. Just like current government subsidized housing people will be placed not because of income but because of size of family........Obama actually believes that doing this will stabilize home prices....WRONG.....any good realtor or appraiser will tell you that rental properties negatively affect values in predominately owner occupied neighborhoods. Obama has people working on a plan (legislation) to implement a 1% (or more) transaction fee on all bank transactions(deposits, withdrawels, inner-bank transfers, debit card purchases, etc.). Instead of addressing TOO BIG TO FAIL.....It appears that this administration is working towards a TOO SMALL TO KEEP system in which these 5 - 10 major banks will control everything and have a monopoly in which there will be no competition as they all will have the same practices. The only truth Obama has told so far was his intention of FUNDAMENTALY CHANGING AMERICA.......
05:45 PM on 09/19/2011
All about being a socialist, with the socialist point of view.
01:04 PM on 09/19/2011
If there is one things we should have learned from the Financial meldown of 2008 is that big is not better. The mergers that we have allowed have not had a beneficial impact on the economic system in this country, they have created a monster where there is basically no responsibility for the corporate decisions that are made. If something is screwed up just do another acquisition and it will hide the problem. What we should be doing is breaking up a lot of the large financial institutions in this country and put responsibility closer to the action and therefore allowing the people who make decisions to be judged sooner rather then later.

It would also assure local communities are properly served. Our system should not be run to give the greatest rewards to the people who contribute the least to the general welfare.

Larry Alves
lja31940@aol.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
alwysonit
Captain Chaos, at your service.
12:40 PM on 09/19/2011
It's hard not to wonder if it would be possible for someone to, like a Monopoly game, end up owning everything. Capitalism is great until greed overcomes philanthropy. What good is all that money if you aren't doing any good with it?
11:55 AM on 09/19/2011
I admit I am against ALL of these super mergers because history should have already taught us that the bigger they come the harder they fall, and when they land they fall on all of us. But shouldn't we be looking at "fall prevention?" Nothing, NOTHING, has been done to reel in the enomous risk taking that deregulation has allowed to spread like a malignant cancer. The daisey chain of interdependent "too big to fail" finacial institutions is more precarious than ever before, and the same free-for-all, non-regulations allow all to take enormious risks, STILL! This merger is just another bad idea in a seemingly never ending list of bad ideas.
11:32 AM on 09/19/2011
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice .......well you know how that goes, but our bought and paid for lawmakers will find a way to go for it again. Maybe the Supreme Court could find a ruling some where that returns America to us Americans. Now we are just spectators in a well orchestrated financial game. They let us buy tickets but we can't play. And every year the price of admission goes up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
appeallawy
11:23 AM on 09/19/2011
The recent past demonstrates that "big" is not only "bad" but dangerous. The bigger the entity the more claim it appears to have for special treatment to avoid the consequences of poor decisions and ineffective controls. A "big" bank is little more than a license vampire sucking the life-blood of its clients and its host. "To big to fail" is too big to permit to exist. Break up large banks. Return to Glass-Stegal Act days.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canoeal
Wooden Boatbuilder, Luke 6:37-38
11:11 AM on 09/19/2011
The feds have created the "too big to fail" senario... The gov't is to big, but can not afford to take on the debt from these banks failing. The FDIC can't cover all of it. So now they make the failing bank part of another bank causing the new bank that is even bigger to be stressed and ultimatley fail... and on and on it goes... We are in very deep water...Time to shrink the size of all banks by spliting them bt region or go back to banks operating in one state. No more maegabanks...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjtaylor22
11:11 AM on 09/19/2011
capitol one and ING.are you kidding me...create al=nother behemoth whose collapse will threatent he nations economy................get the freak outta here..too big to fail is still here..dont let them make another citi group
11:08 AM on 09/19/2011
A company is never too big to fail. If they cannot provide a profitable service or product then they need to fail. Others will pick up the slack, that is the way of the world. "Too big to fail" actually means let's let these wall street companies keep all their wealth even though they have run their companies into the ground. Letting these companies fail will guarantee change that is healthy for the country. Saving companies that are deemed to big to fail is like death by a thousand cuts, it only prolongs the agony and the inevitable. Get it over with and move on, that is how our economy will rebound quicker and get healthy once again!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Edwards
my micro-bio is empty
12:31 PM on 09/19/2011
so true, our so called "leaders" view of capitalism is clearly distorted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canoeal
Wooden Boatbuilder, Luke 6:37-38
11:05 AM on 09/19/2011
This one should be a no-go from the get-go....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nic the wonder puppy
When life throws lemons, throw them back
10:52 AM on 09/19/2011
I like those vikings What's in your wallet?
10:51 AM on 09/19/2011
nationalize it and run it with govt workers. this will eliminate the greed and corruption that all banks are infested with
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canoeal
Wooden Boatbuilder, Luke 6:37-38
11:05 AM on 09/19/2011
Yea right... and provide for more gov't corruption... Which is wrose?
11:14 AM on 09/19/2011
its only the gop who think the govt is corrupyt. that is because the gop is corrupt.
11:46 AM on 09/19/2011
That is the worst idea so far.
10:50 AM on 09/19/2011
it should nationalized like all banks.