Cyprus Is Not So Much An Anomaly as the Template For the Next Financial Crisis

This is not so much anything new, but a concrete reminder of the breadth of systemic banking risks inherent in the Anglo-American banking structure in which depositor money is intermingled with the Bank's speculative interests. 

The repeal of Glass-Steagall stripped the average person of important and time-tested safeguards against loss.   Things are different now.

Any deposits you have at a bank in excess of 'insurance guarantees' are at risk in case of another financial crisis.

This exposure may include wealth you think that you own, but do not know exactly where and how it is being held. This may include 401k's and IRA's, pension plans, health insurance deposits, life insurance and annuities, and so forth.

MF Global was very instructive on how even cash deposits and physical assets backed by a certificate of ownership may be fair game for the banking system in the event of a crisis.

Nothing is perfect and foolproof, but there are degrees of safety.

And you may wish to consider that the next time something like Occupy Wall Street starts up and demands reform, don't stand by on the sidelines and join in with the orchestrated jeering from the one percent's water bearers.

Simplify, streamline, organize.

Demand serious, meaningful, and genuine reform and transparency in the banking and political system.

"The goal is to produce resolution strategies that could be implemented for the failure of one or more of the largest financial institutions with extensive activities in our respective jurisdictions. These resolution strategies should maintain systemically important operations and contain threats to financial stability.

They should also assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors in the group, thereby avoiding the need for a bailout by taxpayers. These strategies should be sufficiently robust to manage the challenges of cross-border implementation and to the operational challenges of execution...

But insofar as a bail-in provides for continuity in operations and preserves value, losses to a deposit guarantee scheme in a bail-in should be much lower than in liquidation. Insured depositors themselves would remain unaffected.

Uninsured deposits would be treated in line with other similarly ranked liabilities in the resolution process, with the expectation that they might be written down."

Bank of England and Federal Reserve Joint Statement on Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.

Related:
A Message From the Banking and Brokerage System
Lawmakers Must Heed the Wisdom of the 1930's
Why Has the Financial System Failed and What Are We Going To Do About It?
A Brilliant Warning on Robert Rubin's Proposal to Deregulate the Banks in 1995

Bernanke's Hammer: When You Have a Printing Press, Everything Looks Like a Monetary Transaction

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

Abraham Maslow, The Psychology of Science, 1966

Apparently while Maslow made this saying famous with a more elegant formulation, the original source of the image is from a Mr. Kaplan who wrote his 'law of the instrument' in 1964.

"I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: 'Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.'"

Speaking of boys and their toys, the word that has made its way across the trading desks is that the Fed's put is back on, or more colloquially phrased, while Bernanke keeps printing, certain favored classes of assets can keep going higher, without regard to fundamentals, except for significant event-driven incidents, that will be quickly papered over.

Otherwise, the dips will be shallow and the trend will be maintained.  For how long I do not know, but as the VIX shows, perceived risk is back down to low levels that we have not seen since the growing credit bubble of 2004-2007.

As an aside, before snarky propeller heads with little better arguments to make point out that the Fed does not literally 'print money,' we all know that. It is a degenerate profession that mixes a pretension to lofty equations and high science with the taunts and arguments of the schoolyard, when they act as the politicians' bullyboys.

The pity is that 'the printing press' is not the only instrument at the Fed's disposal.  After all, they are a significant regulator of the banks, and have gained even more power and influence since the financial crisis.  But as might be obvious to most, they are a terribly conflicted regulator, and given to remarkable lapses in judgement.

Monetary inflation without reform is the 'solution' that most favors the monied interests and the financial class given the extractive nature of the system as it is.

The second most favorable policy is 'austerity,' again without serious reform.  One can increase the value of their own pile of ill gotten gains relative to others through either policy.  It is no choice when you can pick the choices you give to the people, all of which are favorable to you.

Unfettered capitalism is remarkably inventive in its ability to transfer wealth and destroy value.  It commoditizes everything, and subordinates all to a place on its hellish balance sheet.

The meme on the financial markets is that there may be shallow pullbacks, or even a greater correction in response to a specific event, such as the 'fiscal cliff,' but the Fed's policy is to target asset inflation once again, through the Too Big To Fail Banks and hedge funds, and their buying of paper at non-market prices.

There is also a belief, whether it is right or wrong, that the regulators will turn a blind eye to the capping of certain commodities like gold and silver, in the name of managing them as rival currencies.  Even a folk hero like Paul Volcker has previously endorsed this as a policy.

This turning of things upside down is what has been called Rubinomics, the principle that by supporting the buying of certain select instruments such as SP futures ahead of a crisis, one can more efficiently avert a financial problem than by allowing the markets to reflect the fundamentals, and then to clean up the mess afterwards.   It's cheaper and easier he observed.

It is the belief that rather than an instrument of price discovery within the real economy, the financial markets ARE the economy, and will lead rather than follow.  And it has become a form of financial totalitarianism through the manipulation of policy and money.

Robert Rubin articulated this policy perspective while he was the Secretary of the Treasury, and he somehow persuaded Greenspan, then the Chairman of the Fed, to go along with it, shortly after the Maestro had made his famous 'irrational exuberance' speech.  Although it should be noted that Greenspan had already found that tool, and used it.  He merely took it to another level, not as a response to be used to a crisis as in the case of the Crash of 1987, but as a proactive tool of financial engineering.

And this was the genesis of the principles of new Modern Monetary Theory, which in fact is a concept as old as the hills, appearing over again with different names, and the source of much recent misfortune through several Presidencies.

"Notwithstanding anything said or done by the Congress this year, operating through trained surrogates such as Geithner, Summers and others, Robert Rubin is still pulling the economic and financial strings in Washington. The fact that there is a Democrat in the White House almost does not seem to matter. President Obama arguably has a subordinate position to Rubin because of considerations of money."

Chris Whalen, The World According to Robert Rubin

And this is the problem I have with this Modern Monetary Theory that would save the system by placing the ability to simply create money in the hands of the Treasury, to be wielded such titans of sound judgement as Robert Rubin, Hank Paulson, and Tim Geithner, with oversight perhaps by those incorruptibles and paragons in the Congress.

I do not like the banking system as it is, as you know if you frequent this Cafe.  The corruption of insider dealings, opaque deals, and unequal justice has displaced the discipline of well run markets.

The system as it is has all the problems, inefficiences, and injustice of a corrupt and self-serving oligarchy. This is not to say that is a grand conspiracy, but rather a series of unfortunate events and human tendencies, aiding the actions of a relative few.

The solution seems obvious, which is to reform the system, to provide for transparency and the rule of law, and a return to regulations and reforms that worked for decades.  And it is not to replace it with some gimmicky solution that has the same faults or worse, that will be used by same rotten, self-serving gang of idiots and careerists.

And this is why I do not even favor something more rigorous like a return to a gold or mixed metal standard now, because with the system as it is, it would surely be used as an instrument of control and repression.  A corrupt system can corrupt all.  Ask the Greeks how an external standard like the euro is working for them.  It has become an instrument of official plunder. 

The thought of the central government having the power to set official gold prices and control inventory, which they most surely would do, makes one shudder. At least in a nominally free market they can provide some refuge against financial engineering, given a wide enough timeframe.

So what about the markets, and such similar financial engineering notions as 'Nominal GDP Targeting."  Well, we can wonder how the Fed might want to actually achieve such a thing, short of going out and buying iPhones and foodstuffs.  Would it be to continually stuff money into the banks and their associated companies and camp followers, and wait for the trickle down effect?

We have seen the result of such an approach in the past.  The 'hot money' seeks beta, and that means financial paper, and frauds like collateralized debt obligations, tied to whatever hapless aspect of the real economy that is convenient, such as housing for example.

And the self same snarky economists will say, 'Where is the inflation?' and point to the very instruments of measurement of inflation that have been distorted and disabled so as not to show it, 'Chained CPI' being the most recent aberration.  And they know full well that in a situation in which the money supply is being expanded selectively and distributed through a relatively narrow source like the biggest banks, the inflation will show up selectively for quite some time, in inflated assets, bonuses and even industries like the tech sector if one can remember back to the 1990's.

I know how tempting it is for 'a little boy with a hammer' to go about pounding everything in sight.  But at some point, the adults have to come and take away that hammer, and restore the instrument to its proper usage in the service of real work and creative, productive activity.

Be careful in this market.  In markets where stocks trade like commodities, the technicals tend to be dominant because the market is a cynical game of supply and demand, squeezes in both directions, divorced from the underlying economic fundamentals. And it has been made worse by the light volumes, as few bystanders want to put their money down on the three card monte table, such as it is.

The pity is that it is strangling the flow of money to the real economy.

Max Keiser interviews Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica about his recent piece in Atlantic magazine, "What's Inside America's Banks?"

I would like to see Mr. Eisinger interviewed on the Bill Moyers show on PBS.

I doubt he could obtain a fair hearing on any mainstream media channel which prefers to stage manage their discussions in the manner of red versus blue.

Gold Daily and Silver Weekly Charts.

I believe the general manipulation of markets we are seeing now will be traced back to Robert Rubin who formulated a principle of financial activism, or intervention before the fact, as being cheaper and more effective that repairing markets after they suffer a significant decline as Greenspan had done in 1987.

As you may recall the 1987 experience led Reagan to form the President's Working Group on Markets, which grew into the infamous 'Plunge Protection Team' of the 1990's which made generous use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, an opaque kitty used for general market tinkering.

Treasury Secretary Rubin's favorite tool of choice in the markets was said to be the SP futures since they carry the best 'bang for the buck.'

Apparently LIBOR is quite good on the interest rate side of things as well.


The Federal Reserve is adding Daily Gold Prices to their FRED database.


Perhaps they think the price might become more interesting in the near future, or more deserving of their official concern.

Robert Rubin Runs Obama, SP 500 Futures, and Gold

The June Non-Farm Payrolls Report will be released on Friday, July 2. Tomorrow June 30 is the end of the quarter.

The 234th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence is this weekend.

"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth all the means. This is our day of deliverance." John Adams

The equity market feels somewhat artificial, if not contrived. Indeed, I think we are in a period of intensified disinformation running ahead of the fog of war, whether it is between countries, or classes, or both. It is customary to neutralize pre-emptively the moral standing of the friends and allies of something which you intend to attack and destroy.



Bear raids were coming hot and heavy as Gold attempted to break out through overhead resistance. HSBC was spreading talk of Central Bank selling of bullion that did not seem to be apparent in the physical market. As you know, HSBC is one of the banks most heavily short the paper metals markets.



Chris Whalen of the highly respected Institutional Risk Analyst sees Robert Rubin as still pulling the strings in US financial policy and is virtually running the economic policy in the Obama Administration from behind the scenes, through surrogates.

"t comes as a surprise to many people that, despite the fiasco at Citigroup (C) and his role in causing the subprime mess (See "The Subprime Three: Rubin, Summers and Greenspan," The Institutional Risk Analyst, April 28, 2008), Rubin remains inside the circle at the White House. Nearly two decades after first migrating to Washington, he apparently is still calling the shots of U.S. financial and economic policy with the full support of President Barrack Obama. Working through his favorite marionettes, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Economic Policy Czar Larry Summers, most recently Rubin managed the defense of Wall Street following the great crisis. No matter what Secretary Geithner says or when he says it in public, you can be sure that those utterances have the full knowledge and approval of his handler Larry Summers and their common political owner and sponsor, Robert Rubin.

A modern day colossus, Rubin effortlessly bestrides the worlds of political and finance, and mostly without leaving a trail of slime that often betrays the average political operator. Rubin stood at the right hand of Alan Greenspan on the famous February 1999 Time cover entitled: "The Committee to Save the World." Not an entrepreneur like Pierpont Morgan, Rubin is a mixture of banker, politician and global technocrat, a super fixer of sorts, but with a proper sense for public-private partnership. Case in point: The famous letter from Rubin to Goldman Sachs clients when he first went to the Clinton White House saying that just because he was in Washington didn't mean he wouldn't be looking after them...

The end result of financial reform is inconvenience for the financial services industry and more expense for the taxpayer and the consumer. But it should be noted that, once again, Wall Street has managed to blunt the worst effects of public anger at the industry's collective malfeasance. The banks can now start to focus their financial firepower on winning back hearts and minds on Capitol Hill. All it takes is money.

Notwithstanding anything said or done by the Congress this year, operating through trained surrogates such as Geithner, Summers and others, Robert Rubin is still pulling the economic and financial strings in Washington. The fact that there is a Democrat in the White House almost does not seem to matter. President Obama arguably has a subordinate position to Rubin because of considerations of money. If you differ, then ask yourself if Barack Obama could seek the presidency in 2012 without the support of Bob Rubin and the folks at Goldman Sachs. Case closed.

For America's creditors and allies, the key question is whether the Democrats around Rubin are willing to embrace fiscal discipline at a time when deflation in the US is accelerating. That roaring sound you hear is the approaching waterfall of the double dip. With the US at the moment eschewing anything remotely like fiscal restraint and the rest of the world going in the opposite direction, to us the next crisis probably involves U.S. interest rates and the dollar.

Judging by Rubin's performance in the past, when he talked first of a strong dollar, then a weak dollar policy, and fudged the issue regarding fiscal deficits, we could be in for quite a ride. But at some point the Obama Administration should acknowledge that this particular former CEO of Goldman Sachs is still driving the policy bus. If the Republicans are in control of the Congress come next January, maybe they should subpoena Rubin to appear periodically. At least then we all can hear directly to the person who is actually making national economic policy."

The World According to Robert Rubin, Chris Whalen, IRA

One has to wonder, of course, who is running economic policy for the Republicans? It seems to be more of a case of competing crime families, than a simple good vs. evil.

If Rubin does indeed run Obama, the question remains, who runs Rubin, and where do his loyalties lie? Whom does he serve?

Banks Come Back For Another Bailout in Ireland While the US 'Manages Perceptions'

The whole notion of bank bailouts is a tremendous injustice when not accompanied by personal bankruptcy and civil and criminal prosecution for those banks managers who created them and are found guilty of fraud.

In addition, the owners of the banks, whether through debt or shares, should be wiped out and the bank placed in a proper receivership while its books are sorted out.

The US is an accounting mirage. The notion that it will make money from its stake in Citi is a sleight of hand. The enormous subsidies to the banks both in terms of direct payments, indirect payments through entities like AIG, and subsidies such as the erosion of the currency and the deterioration of the real economy, will never be repaid.

The real model of how to handle a banking crisis is in the Scandinavian nationalization of the banks, or even better, the disposition of the Savings and Loans in the US. during that crisis.

This pragamatic approach, its cheaper just to pay them all off than to sort them out, is a child of the Rubinomics of mid 1990's in the States, in which it was determined to be better to prop up the stock markets, often by buying the SP futures, than it was to allow the market to reach its level, and then deal with the financial carnage of a market crash. Here is a review of a paper by Rubin's protege, and some might say the government's Thomas Cromwell, Larry Summers.

From the Horse's Mouth: Lawrence Summers On Market Manipulation In Times of Crisis

The fourth position, which Summers calls pragmatic, in his own words, “is the one embraced implicitly, if not explicitly by policymakers in most major economies. It holds that central banks must always do whatever is necessary to preserve the integrity of the financial system regardless of whether those who receive support are solvent or can safely pay a penalty rate. This position concedes that some institutions may become too large to fail. While lender-of-last-resort insurance, like any other type of insurance, will have moral hazard effects, I argue that these may be small when contrasted with the benefits of protecting the real economy from financial disturbances”

This is the very essence of the Rubin doctrine. Pragmatic circumvention of the Constitution and the laws of the land by means of market manipulation and government subsidies cloaked in secrecy, misrepresentation, and a public relations campaign.

In addition to this paper, Mr. Summers is also the author of a paper Gibson's Paradox which seems to prescribe the manipulation the price of key commodities including gold in order to influence longer term interest rates. Indeed, we hear that in some recent FOIA act returns there were refusals to disclose papers from the Fed purporting to set out the 'new gold policy of the US' with many charts and pages of text. Indeed, what is the real policy of the US? I thought it was to allow it to sit, unaudited, in Fort Knox and the various Reserve Banks, while leasing it out to some extent.

And while as Obama's current Economic Advisor is talking a good game, the facts seem to indicate that the US is still pursuing a policy of managed perceptions, accounting deceptions, and old fashioned insider dealing and other forms of corruption that always accompany government, but reach a feverish pitch in times of crisis. It is the establishment's form of looting.

As we can easily see, this policy has spawned a series of tremendous financial bubbles in tech, and housing, and now credit, and corporate debt, and the dollar itself, which will eventually veer completely out of control into the improbability of hyperinflation. Inflicting pain on the common taxpayers for the transfressions of the financiers is beyond moral hazard.

The Banks must be restrained, the financial system reformed, and the economy brought back into balance, before there can be any sustained recovery.

Guardian UK
Ireland Poised for New Bank Bailout
By Jill Treanor
29 March 2010 18.58 BST

Irish taxpayers face pouring billions more euros into their troubled banking sector on what is being dubbed "bailout Tuesday".

The government is expected to take bigger stakes in Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland as the property lending spree that took place before the 2007 credit crunch continues to knock holes in their battered balance sheets.

But while the Irish taxpayer faces taking on a greater burden from the banking sector – perhaps as much as €16bn (£14bn) – the US began to prepare to sell off its 7.7bn shares in Citigroup, into which the authorities pumped $24bn of cash during the 2008 banking crisis. Those 7.7bn shares were worth $32bn last night - implying a profit for the US treasury if the share price can withstand the sale of such a huge amount of shares.

In Ireland, though, the crisis is yet to abate as the economy weakens and the government follows through on an austerity budget that has imposed cuts in public sector pay after €11bn was injected into the banks.

Shares in Allied Irish Banks closed down 19% in Dublin at €1.37, ahead of announcements when the National Asset Management Agency, a toxic loan body, is due to provide details on the price for taking on the bad loans. Financial regulators will also set out the size of the capital cushions the banks will have to hold in preparation for future losses.

The Irish government took control of Anglo Irish Bank last year and holds stakes of 16% in Bank of Ireland, which runs the Post Office bank in the UK, and 25% of Allied Irish.

Local speculation is focused on the government stake rising to more than 70% in Allied Irish and more than 40% in Bank of Ireland while building societies EBS and Irish Nationwide may also need taxpayer involvement as the authorities continue to tackle the losses caused by bad lending.

A Nice Expose of the Shadow Banking System

Are we this dumb or are these guys that brazen?

The expose is in our parenthetical remarks. The rest of this is a thin coat of history and spin.

Its time to get medieval with Wall Street.

Brokers threatened by run on shadow bank system
Regulators eye $10 trillion market that boomed outside traditional banking
By Alistair Barr
Market Watch
6:29 p.m. EDT June 19, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A network of lenders, brokers and opaque financing vehicles outside traditional banking that ballooned during the bull market now is under siege as regulators threaten a crackdown on the so-called shadow banking system. (Not 'under siege' but more like "imploding and crying for help after having bought off most of the establishment' - Jesse)

Big brokerage firms like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch which some say are the biggest players in this non-bank financial network, may have the most to lose from stricter regulation. (Legal reform has a negative impact on criminal organizations - Insight! - Jesse)

The shadow banking system grew rapidly during the past decade, accumulating more than $10 trillion in assets by early 2007. That made it roughly the same size as the traditional banking system, according to the Federal Reserve. (And they didn't see it coming, uh huh - Jesse)

While this system became a huge and vital source of money to fuel the U.S. economy, the subprime mortgage crisis and ensuing credit crunch exposed a major flaw. Unlike regulated banks, which can borrow directly from the government and have federally insured customer deposits, the shadow system didn't have reliable access to short-term borrowing during times of stress. (Oh, they just needed a better and more reliable 'fence' to move their goods - Jesse)

Unless radical changes are made to bring this shadow network under an updated regulatory umbrella, the current crisis may be just a gust compared to the storm that would follow a collapse of the global financial system, experts warn. (Hey didn't we do just that with the Glass-Steagall law the last time they did this in the 1920's? - Jesse)

Such vulnerability helped transform what may have been an uncomfortable correction in credit markets into the worst global credit crunch in more than a decade as monetary policymakers and regulators struggled to contain the damage. (Sounds like a headline from the Wall Street Journal..... in 1931 - Jesse)

Unless radical changes are made to bring this shadow network under an updated regulatory umbrella, the current crisis may be just a gust compared to the storm that would follow a collapse of the global financial system, experts warn. (How come these guys always issue their weather reports while standing on the wreckage of a city that has already been devastated by a major hurricane, but the day before had been saying 'The beaches are open!' - Jesse)

"The shadow banking system model as practiced in recent years has been discredited," Ramin Toloui, executive vice president at bond investment giant Pimco, said. (As it had been just after the Crash of 1929 - Jesse)

Toloui expects greater regulation of big brokerage firms which may face stricter capital requirements and requirements to hold more liquid, or easily sellable, assets. (No sorry dear reader, 'greater regulation does not mean 'waterboarding.' - Jesse)

'Clarion call'

"The bright new financial system -- for all its talented participants, for all its rich rewards -- has failed the test of the market place," Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said during a speech in April. "It all adds up to a clarion call for an effective response."

Two months later, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and others have begun to answer that call. (Timmy 'the Fixer' Geithner - Jesse)

"The structure of the financial system changed fundamentally during the boom, with dramatic growth in the share of assets outside the traditional banking system," he warned in a speech last week. That "made the crisis more difficult to manage."

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Chief Executive Henry Paulson said the Fed should be given the authority to collect information from large complex financial institutions and intervene if necessary to stabilize future crises.

Regulators should also have a clear way of taking over and closing a failed brokerage firm, he added. (We do. Its run by the FDIC and its called 'orderly liquidation' and 'prosecution' - Jesse)
Banking bedrock

The bedrock of traditional banking is borrowing money over the short term from customers who deposit savings in accounts and then lending it back out as mortgages and other higher-yielding loans over longer periods.

The owners of banks are required by regulators to invest some of their own money and reinvest some of the profit to keep an extra level of money in reserve in case the business suffers losses on some of its loans. That ensures that there's still enough money to repay all depositors after such losses.

In recent decades, lots of new businesses and investment vehicles have evolved that do the same thing, but outside the purview of traditional banking regulation.

Instead of getting money from depositors, these financial intermediaries often borrow by selling commercial paper, which is a type of short-term loan that has to be re-financed over and over again. And rather than offering home loans, these entities buy mortgage-backed securities and other more complex securities.

A $10 trillion shadow

By early 2007, conduits, structured investment vehicles and similar entities that borrowed in the commercial paper market and bought longer-term asset-backed securities, held roughly $2.2 trillion in assets, according to the Fed's Geithner.

Another $2.5 trillion in assets were financed overnight in the so-called repo market, Geithner said.

Geithner also highlighted big brokerage firms, saying that their combined balance sheets held $4 trillion in assets in early 2007. (With the active help and collusion of Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson... - Jesse)

Hedge funds held another $1.8 trillion, bringing the total value of asset in the "non-bank" financial system to $10.5 trillion, he added.

That dwarfed the total assets of the five largest banks in the U.S., which held just over $6 trillion at the time, Geithner noted. The traditional banking system as a whole held about $10 trillion, he said.

While acting like banks, these shadow banking entities weren't subject to the same supervision, so they didn't hold as much capital to cushion against potential losses. When subprime mortgage losses started last year, their sources of short-term financing dried up.

"These things act like banks, but they're not," James Hamilton, professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego, said. "The fundamental inadequacy of their own capital caused these problems."

Big brokers targeted

Geithner said the most fundamental reform that's needed is to regulate big brokerage firms and global banks under a unified system with stronger supervision and "appropriate" requirements for capital and liquidity. (Didn't the Fed 'repeal' that system in the 1990's? Oh yeah. Oops. Their bad. - Jesse)

Financial institutions should be persuaded to keep strong capital cushions and more liquid assets during periods of calm in the market, he explained, noting that's the best way to limit the damage during a crisis.

At a minimum, major investment banks and brokerage firms should adhere to similar rules on capital, liquidity and risk management as commercial banks, Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., said on Wednesday.

"It makes sense to extend some form of greater prudential regulation to investment banks," she said.

Separation dwindled

After the stock market crash of 1929, the U.S. Congress passed laws that separated commercial banks from investment banks.

The Fed, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and state regulators oversaw commercial banks, which took in customer deposits and lent that money out. The Securities and Exchange Commission regulated brokerage firms, which underwrote offerings of stocks and corporate bonds.

This separation dwindled during the 1980s and 1990s as commercial banks tried to push into investment banking -- following their large corporate clients which were selling more bonds, rather than borrowing directly from banks.

By 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act rolled back Depression-era restrictions, allowing banks, brokerage firms and insurers to merge into financial holding companies that would be regulated by the Fed. (That's Gramm as in Phil Gramm chief economic adviser to current presidential candidate John McCain - Jesse)

Commercial banks like Citigroup Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase signed up and developed large investment banking businesses. (Under Sandy Weill of Citigroup enough lobbyists were paid to overturn these regulation to fund several institutions of major learning for their kids and strip clubs for dad and mega-manions for mom - Jesse)

However, big brokerage firms like Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Lehman didn't become financial holding companies and stayed out of commercial banking partly to avoid increased regulation by the Fed.

Run on a shadow bank

The Fed's bailout of Bear Stearns in March will probably change all that, experts said this week.

Bear, a leading underwriter of mortgage securities, almost collapsed after customers and counterparties deserted the firm.

It was like a run on a bank. But Bear wasn't a bank. It financed a lot of its activity by borrowing short term in repo and commercial paper markets and couldn't borrow from the Fed if things got really bad.

Bear's low capital levels left it with highly leveraged exposures to risky mortgage-related securities, which triggered initial doubts among customers and trading partners.

The Fed quickly helped J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the largest commercial banks, acquire Bear. To prevent further damage to the financial system, the Fed also started lending directly to brokerage firms for the first time since the Depression.

"They stepped in because Bear was facing a traditional bank run -- customers were pulling short-term assets and the firm couldn't sell its long-term assets quickly enough," Hamilton said. "Rules should apply here: You should have enough of your own capital available to pay back customers to avoid a run like that." (Nice precedent - more public money for JPM - Jesse)

Bear necessity

A more worrying question from the Bear Stearns debacle is why customers and investors were willing to lend money to the firm in the absence of an adequate capital cushion, Hamilton said.

"The creditors thought that Bear was too big to fail and that the government would step in to prevent creditors losing their money," he explained. "They were right because that's exactly what happened."

"This is a system in which institutions like Bear Stearns are taking far too much risk and a lot of that risk is being borne by the government, not these firms or the market," he added.

The Fed has lent between $8 billion and more than $30 billion each week directly to brokerage firms since it set up its new program in March. Most experts say this source of emergency funding is unlikely to disappear, even though it's scheduled to end in September.

"It's almost impossible to go back," FDIC's Bair said on Wednesday. (We have a few ideas - let's get medieval on their asses - Jesse)

With taxpayer money permanently on the line to save big brokers, these firms should now be more strictly regulated to keep future bailouts to a minimum, Bair and others said.

"By definition, if they're going to give the investment banks access to the window, I for one do believe they have the right for oversight," Richard Fuld, chief executive of Lehman, told analysts during a conference call this week. "What that means, though, particularly as far as capital levels or asset requirements, it's way too early to tell."

Super Fed

Next year, Congress likely will pass legislation forcing big brokerage firms to be regulated fully by the Fed as financial holding companies, Brad Hintz, a securities analyst at Bernstein Research and former chief financial officer of Lehman, said.

Legislators will probably also call for tighter limits on the leverage and trading risk taken on by large brokers, while demanding more conservative funding and liquidity policies, he added.

Restrictions on these firms' forays into venture capital, private equity, real estate, commodities and potentially hedge funds may also follow too, Hintz warned.
This may undermine the source of much of the surging profit generated by big brokerage firms in recent years.

A newly empowered "super Fed" will likely encourage these firms to arrange longer-term, more secure sources of borrowing and even promote the development of deposit bases, just like commercial and retail banks, the analyst explained.

This will make borrowing more expensive for brokerage firms, undermining the profitability of businesses that require a lot of capital, such as fixed income, institutional equities, commodities and prime brokerage, Hintz said.

Such regulatory changes will cut big brokers' return on equity -- a closely watched measure of profitability -- to roughly 15.5% from 19%, Hintz estimated in a note to investors this week.

Lehman and Goldman will be most affected by this -- seeing return on equity drop by about four percentage points over the business cycle -- because they have larger trading books and greater exposure to revenue from sales and trading. Goldman also has a major merchant banking business that may also be constrained, Hintz added.

Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch will see declines of 3.2 percentage points and 2.2 percentage points in their return on equity, the analyst forecast. (move that decimal point several places to the right - Jesse)

If you can't beat them...

Facing lower returns and more stringent bank-like regulation, some big brokerage firms may decide they're better off as part of a large commercial bank, some experts said.

"If you're being regulated like a bank and your leverage ratio looks something like a bank's, can you really earn the returns you were making as a broker dealer? Probably not," Margaret Cannella, global head of credit research at J.P. Morgan, said.

Regulatory changes will be unpopular with some brokerage CEOs and could result in a shakeup of the industry and more consolidation, she added.

Hintz said the business models of some brokerage firms may evolve into something similar to Bankers Trust and the old J.P. Morgan. (as they say in Halo - new zombies - Jesse)

In the mid 1990s, Bankers Trust and J.P. Morgan relied more on deposits and less on the repo market to finance their assets. They also operated with leverage ratios of roughly 20 times capital. That's lower than today's brokerage firms, which were levered roughly 30 times during the peak of the credit bubble last year, according to Hintz.

However, both firms soon ended up in the arms of more regulated commercial banks. Bankers Trust was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1998. Chase Manhattan Bank bought J.P. Morgan in 2000.

Alistair Barr is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.