iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Bank CEOs To Tell Fed Regulation Is 'Unrealistic': Report

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted: 04/27/2012 3:46 pm Updated: 04/27/2012 4:06 pm

Too Big To Fail
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has called a meeting between the Fed and too big to fail banks to "discuss" regulation.

The banking industry is getting personal in its tireless fight against regulation.

Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase and the industry's regulation-basher in chief, has called for a sit-down next week between the heads of four of the nation's biggest banks -- JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley -- and Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.

The purpose of this friendly get-together will be to express the banks' displeasure about financial regulation, particularly a Fed plan to limit the banks' exposure to derivatives tied to the credit of foreign governments and other banks.

According to the WSJ:

bankers will tell regulators that the rule is based on "unrealistic" standards and could foster "potentially destabilizing" market shifts, according to two draft letters reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

In other words: Nice economy you've got there. Shame if anything should happen to it.

Together the four too-big-to-fail banks attending this meeting had $166.2 trillion in "gross notional" exposure to derivatives and the end of 2011, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or about 72 percent of the $230.8 trillion held by all U.S. banks and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign banks.

"Gross notional" exposure is the total face value of all derivatives contracts the banks have entered into. The vast majority of them -- possibly more than 90 percent of the face value, estimates the OCC -- may be offsetting or hedged, so a lot of this is not necessarily money that anybody will ever have to pay. One risk, however, is that during a crisis some of these offsets or hedges may not quite work out, leaving banks -- or, rather, taxpayers -- on the hook.

Demonocracy has put together a mind-blowing visualization of just how huge these derivatives exposures are (even if, again, the total amounts are not quite realistic).

And most of the derivatives exposure at Wednesday's meeting is concentrated in just three banks: JPMorgan -- arguably the most important/dangerous bank in the world and the originator of the whole credit-derivative concept -- along with Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

Morgan Stanley, which will also attend the meeting, has a relatively small amount of notional derivatives exposure, at $1.72 trillion, according to the OCC.

The WSJ report does not say whether Citigroup will be attending next week's meeting, though it would seem to have a gigantic stake in the outcome. It has the second-biggest exposure to derivatives in the U.S., with $52.1 trillion, after JPMorgan's $70.15 trillion.

The presence of these giant banks at this meeting, with their huge piles of derivatives, ironically highlights the very problem the Fed rule is meant to address: Regulators are concerned that far too much derivatives exposure is concentrated in the hands of just a few banks, who also happen to be exposed to each other.

A pile-up of derivatives exposure in the insurance giant AIG nearly brought that company down during the financial crisis, dragging the whole financial system with it, through the risk of the big banks doing business with it.

Next week's meeting is only one of the most overt of the financial sector's efforts to fight regulations following the financial crisis that it created. As the WSJ points out, the banks have bombarded regulators with comments about the Volcker Rule, which bans them from trading with their own money, until that rule has been rendered incoherent and delayed for at least two years.

Meanwhile, the industry has chipped away steadily at derivatives regulation in quieter ways, trying desperately to keep this massive business as far away from regulation and sunlight as possible.

FOLLOW BUSINESS

The banking industry is getting personal in its tireless fight against regulation. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase and the industry's regulation-basher in chief, has called for a sit...
The banking industry is getting personal in its tireless fight against regulation. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase and the industry's regulation-basher in chief, has called for a sit...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 754
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (32 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tosc
01:10 PM on 04/30/2012
unfortunately banks have created a negative view for themselves. They have painted themselves as greedy, self-indulged money grabbers who care nothing for the customers and the country as a whole. they have thrown in the towel on national patriotism and have shifted their focus to profit at all cost. Banks have become the "they" in a public relations battle.
11:54 AM on 04/30/2012
The regulators better not back down. It can't be any more depolarizing then what the banks just put and are putting us through!!
11:13 AM on 04/30/2012
Glass-Steagall ... Glass-Steagall ... Glass-Steagall !!!

That solves most of it quite simply.

Bill Clinton's financial crew messed it up. Obama's financial crew (included some of the Clinton crew) hasn't fixed the mistake yet. Obama sure wasted this crisis when he had great popularity and Congressional majority. Where's FDR and Pecora?
11:02 AM on 04/30/2012
BREAK UP THESE ARROGANT BEHEMOTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11:14 AM on 04/30/2012
Too big to fail, too big to regulate, to big to operate with public accountability.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
authorized-user
macho macho man
10:08 AM on 04/30/2012
New financial regulation should be based on the ten commandments,
Bankers violate most of them every day.
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
09:14 AM on 04/30/2012
Time to break them up. Banks are not above the law nor are they as important as the people they are supposed to serve. Since we can't seem to put bankers in prison, let's do the next best thing.
08:20 AM on 04/30/2012
Glass Stangel please...these criminals cannot control themselves...and that is fine with me as long as FDIC does not have to cover their mistakes with a bailout
11:18 AM on 04/30/2012
It's Glass-Steagall - but you are right on content. Keep advocating for restoration of the law that protected us from such wild financial abuses for generations. The banksters will buy any president and congress they can. Presidents and Congress should dress like NASCAR drivers with the logos of their sponsors on their suits.
07:27 AM on 04/30/2012
I'm amazed they even have the decency to complain, but Oh yea, their Bankers so who would expect anything different? Their already bigger than they were before they drove the Global economy into the ground and the FEd bailed em' out and gave them a bonus by lending the Banks money at or near 0%.. And the Banks were so grateful to the taxpayers for the bailout that they showed their gratitude by raising interests rates on CC that would have made a Mafia loan shark blush with envy! But since this was God's work, we shouldn't complain!
06:26 AM on 04/30/2012
IT IS YOU, the ceo's, that STILL have not figured out that IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU - this is about AMERICA and if it comes down to picking sides AMERICA WILL WIN EVERY TIME.
11:20 AM on 04/30/2012
Matt Taibbi started writing about Wall Street abuses after returning to the USA and noticing how corruption had grown to remind him of corruption in third world and post-Communist countries. We have a problem. (If you haven't read Taibbi, you can look him up on the net. He writes for Rolling Stone.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ian OFull
Left Independent. Pro-Solutions/Anti-Fear.
09:35 PM on 04/29/2012
They should just be broken up to end this merry go round. They have no intention of changing their behavior. They are addicted to casino profit and as it appears they are offended by the idea of actually providing services to attract business from average depositors. They want everyone else belt to tighten while they expand their own. I say no! Trust bust.
06:47 PM on 04/29/2012
Regulations are in place to protect people. Bottom line. If you are for less regulation, you are just for financial gain at the expense of all else.
11:22 AM on 04/30/2012
It's not about how much regulation. It's about the simplicity, rightness, and directness of regulation. Spiderwebs of complex regulation provide jobs for accountants and attorneys to find the loopholes. Complexity often hides the bad guys.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
More prayers, fewer preyers.
05:51 PM on 04/29/2012
Thank heaven for Citizen's United! By de-regulating the production and ownership of politics, market efficiencies :: always based, of course, on the ability to pay :: have permitted us to distinguish finally, as markets do, between what people need and what people want, all based on the natural law that they who have the gold make the laws. By rationalizing the production and ownership of politicians along market principles of demand and supply, the all too human but fruitless distinction between need and want is set aside so that wants, matched by an ability to pay for these, may be satisfied.

Though the Court understood the principle of production for profit, it failed distributionally by not quite letting markets decide completely. It left the ballot. The ballot interferes with the distribution of market produced politicians, but, thankfully, the Court, in labeling spending as speech, has left the door open for eventual fidiciary voting (one dollar one vote) giving those most able to $peak out loudly a greater $ay in representative politic$. .

The Court, in Citizen's United, did not quite obviate the sense of entitlement needy people have to be represented. But, the production and distribution of politicians :: like that of other goods, say, like television :: cannot be governed by needs. Without the for-profit motive and consumer demand, politics has not worked properly.

Gains are yet to be made, of course.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AgainstAnimalAbuse
The end justifies the means
03:25 PM on 04/29/2012
Banks are the new dicktators. (intentional spelling error)
11:23 AM on 04/30/2012
Well, Bank of America grew because its past CEO wanted to say 'mine is bigger than yours.'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AgainstAnimalAbuse
The end justifies the means
02:06 PM on 05/03/2012
Bankers have to compensate for their shortcomings!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jwredd
03:01 PM on 04/29/2012
"Ha! You want to regulate us after we destroyed_the global economy? Well, that's just simply unrealistic."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Hermans
I'm in the middle and I can't even see the right!
10:39 AM on 04/29/2012
Does someone, anyone, have a plan to shrink the 'too big to fail' banks? How is that not our nation's top priority?
11:25 AM on 04/30/2012
There was a plan for the FDIC insured ones. But past and present administrations decided not to go there. Look up "Prompt Corrective Action" put in place because of and after the Savings & Loan debacle.