Yves Smith on regulation

Yves Smith woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and starts railing against the banks, calling for their 'beheading'! Essentially he claims "the banks are wards of the state" and it is time we acted accordingly.

From Naked Capitalism:

My short list (some of them cribbed or adapted from a proposal by Amar Bhide) of what to do would be:

1. Force as much OTC activity as has reasonable trading volume onto exchanges. That means at a minimum interest rate swaps, currency swaps, and credit default swaps. Yes, this will require standardization and some buyers will lose access to variants they might have liked. Too bad. Protecting the economy and the taxpayer is more important than indulging every investor's pet need.

This of course will also considerably lower the profitabilty of the industry. Again, too bad. They screwed up and cost the populace a ton of dough. There are consequences for mistakes of that magnitude. They should consider themselves lucky not to have been subject to public beheadings.

Lower profits for banks has positive consequences. It means less talent and other resources are sucked into the FIRE economy (and remember, the FI in that equation are at best service providers to the real economy, and worse, when they become too large, parasites).

2. Prohibit off balance sheet vehicles.

3. Prohibit Level 3 assets; allow only Level 1 and strictly defined and audited Level 2 assets. This means regulators will not have anything overly arcane to assess; they ought to be able to get a clear picture of risks, processes, and exposures if they are dogged.

4. Prohibit these regulated institutions from lending, providing other funding, or investing in concerns that have Level 3 assets.

Hedge funds would continue to be unregulated. I might also prohibit any unregulated entity from going public. Speculators playing with investors' money is tempting enough; having them have even less skin in the game via a public floatation makes it easier for them to get so large as to pose a danger. Yes, this can create problems of succession, but Wall Street dealt with it for a hundred years or so. These guys ought to be smart enough to figure it out.



The first one, the open exchange proposal seems like a winner and is a lot of folks favorite.

Assume there is an open exchange of currently OTC products. Assume you set a debt to capital ratio and limit lending in the investment banks, like is done today for commercial banks.

then some interesting points on 2-3-4 follow:

On 2- Off balance sheets vehicles were designed to bypass these artificial limitations legislated eons ago. With an update of these numbers, the whole banking system will lose interest in using these tricks anyway. The need for off-balance sheets almost disappears. Banning it adds to the point emphatically but it is almost redundant.

On 3- prohibit level 3 assets. This is the whole mark to market issue. The whole point of level 3 assets is that they are long-lived and thus hard to price on a every day basis. That is what banks (i-banks and c-banks) DO for a living. They provide the "borrow short/lend long" service. This proposal of prohibiting level 3 assets is both radical and counter-nature. The problem is not the existence of these assets it is the leverage associated with them. Too much leverage and noise is enough to wipe out equity on a mark-to-market basis. Again this could be taken care of by setting the amount of leverage at the primary brokers.

4- prohibit lending to entities that hold level 3.
I assume not all level 3 assets are toxic and the notion of "long assets" should not be affected by noise. Again, restricting who holds it and the leverage associated with it may be a better compromise. You can have regulated investment banks for example, that are allowed, even encouraged, to hold onto level 3 asset while you ban the unregulated ones from dealing in too illiquid an asset. To me this is primarily an accounting issue, I don't really lose sleep over it. Saying this is saying "I don't lose sleep over bank-runs". Which I don't. Not while the FED is around at least.

Yves' last point about hedge fund is that they should be left un-regulated but prohibited from ever going public. The rational is that the profession is so biased to take risks with your money, they are simply too toxic to be allowed to float publicly. It may prove an artificial restriction.

Hedge funds are statistical animals by definition, and thus benefit from de-regulation as, as a whole, they occupy more of the "configuration space". But that statistical distribution says that some of them will take the position of "make a bit of money for a long time until I blow up". With leverage they will give great public returns until by definition of statistical distribution, they blow up. Unlike regular "industry", they don't have a "going concern" as some of them are supposed to exist until their number is up. It is relevant to point out that the existence of a public market for these complex derivative products could shed light on the books of the hedge-funds and provide insights into capital to debt ratios and risk profiles. The configuration space would still be the creation of the legislators.

Monetary policy can be implemented that way and M2 controlled at those primary broker choke points. Which is all a fancy way of saying "10 was too low, 30 is too high, maybe we set legal leverage at 24 and see what happens?"

Comments

Juha Lindfors said…
The problem with level 3 is mark-to-model, since these things are so illiquid there's usually no active market for them anyway. Only a model exists in someone's head where they think how this thing is going to be priced, and the accountants either agree to it or not (and how would the accountant know if you just pulled that model out of your ass?)

So level 3 leaves room for a lot of "financial creativity" (read: abuse). Supposedly mark-to-market allows banks to manage their capital ratios without having to liquidate the stuff but it gets funny when you go to a model -- first of all, it's imaginary and second, you can bet those models are much more optimistic on the upside and tend to ignore the downside. Which in turn leads to an imaginary capital base. Which folds like a house of cards :-)

It gets even funnier when you think of those huge annual bonuses paid based on the imaginary models -- it's the bonus that makes mark-to-market (and model) so popular :-)

So the problem with level 3 is you can take any junk on it, as long as the accountant doesn't flag your model, and then reap huge profits.

Did that just describe subprime?

And yes, you're right, being 30x leveraged on an asset at value zero (most of L3 during recession) is a problem :-D
Juha Lindfors said…
And... I don't think banks would stop taking in non-toxic L3's. It is the accounting that should change -- L3 accounting should go back to The Olde Tymes, you don't get to book the profit until you realize it.

Yes it stings on quarterly reports and bonuses but if the value is really there, it will come to home eventually. At least that should make financials wary of junk and really look hard into it.

The bonus incentive of fixing the model to your own benefit would disappear. Which should help clear a lot of problems.
adt43wt342 said…
Yeah it is funny isn't it. I liked your point of "it is the bonuses that make mark to market popular" he he.

Olde Tymes heh? Where profits were realized and man wore lambskin diapers. Bring back ye olde tymes!
Juha Lindfors said…
If you want to get deeper into conspiracy land -- Goldman's L3 assets have increased 40% to 50% in the last couple of quarters (at $96B now). They say it's because they've reclassified some L2's to L3 because the market's disappeared.

Now you could reclassify because suddenly the market really is gone, or you could reclassify because you go from mark-to-market on a very bad market to mark-to-model where you just come up with a price based on "certain management assumptions". Or in other words, "we just pulled a price out of thin air because it makes the balance sheet look better -- oh and I'll have my bonus check now, thank-you-very-much".

Noticeably Goldman is the one without significant write-downs.... just sayin'.

Oh, and with that new FED facility, they now have "$96B" (quotes) worth of collateral to shove to US government in exchange of some treasuries :-P

Hmm hmm.
Anonymous said…
85cc免費影城85cc免費影片免費 a 片台灣論壇免費影片線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞a片免費看免費A片A片-sex52085cc免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片免費a片卡通sex888影片分享區520sex貼片區aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費色咪咪影片網成人a影片論壇免費影片下載aaaaaa片俱樂部sex520免費影片sex888免費看影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片gogo2sexaaa片免費看短片免費 a 片aaa片免費看短片免費線上avdvd成人圖片區18成人avoooaaa的滿18歲卡通影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sexdiy影城plus論壇dudu sex免費影片85cc成人影城臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看彩虹頻道免費影片洪爺影城浪漫月光論壇bbs x693 com sex888 sex383線上娛樂場85cc免費影片sex888 freebbs hksogo 成人論壇sex999日本美女寫真集日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞微風成人av論壇aaaa 片俱樂部免費影片下載a亞洲免費影片線上直播卡通美女a片免費試看免費成人視訊視訊情色遊戲援交av080影片sexdiy影城sex520免費影片sex888movie影城情色小說 杜蕾斯成人一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片本土辣妹34c影片直播吉澤明步sex888免費看影片論壇a 免費影片觀賞aa的滿18歲影片av080免費試看sex888 freebbs hk免費aa片試看免費影片觀賞av博物館aaa免費看影片亞洲禁果影城免費a片aaaaa片俱樂部影片5278論壇金瓶影片交流區383movie成人影城aio性愛dvd辣妹影片直播免費a片線上觀看,sex520貼片ut13077視訊聊天avdvd無碼情色電影日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞台南援交友留言hi5 tv免費影片1314視訊成人論壇成人免費視訊 完美女人hilive tv 免費電影34c蒼井空影片下載avdvdsex383線上娛樂場aio交友愛情館sex383線上娛樂場JP成人網免費視訊聊天室微風成人

Popular posts from this blog

$6.66B for BEA: Larry goes Shopping

Thug vs Thug: Porsche 1, Hedge Funds: 0

Quickies #3, protecting IP in OSS