Tag Archives: wall street

Where Does Wall Street Add Value?

I had lunch today with a guy I share office space with. He is a partner at a small investment bank and has spent his entire career at various investment banks, helping companies raise capital. He is part of Wall Street, and Wall Street pays for his house and his kids’ private schools. And yet even this insider, when our conversation turned to proprietary trading and hedge fund, he remarked “What do those guys really add to society? They don’t build anything. They don’t allocate capital. They just make money from gaming the market.”

It’s true. When we discussed Renaissance Technologies’ 45% annual return since 1988, I noted that there are 90 PhDs, mostly in physics and computer science, working there. Think of the great things those guys might invent if they were trying to grow something other than their bank accounts.

Wall Street: “Trust Us.” Me: “No!”

Last week the Wall Street Journal wrote an article on the SEC‘s efforts to ban “naked access,” which is a system whereby big stock traders are given direct access to brokers’ computers so that they can trade faster. The SEC fears that this could be destabilizing to markets. Wall Street says that naked access improves liquidity. They also say that “high-speed trading firms are sophisticated and have risk-management tools that limit the likelihood of destabilizing trades.”

Haven’t we heard that song before? Wall Street said that they were sophisticated traders of mortgage-backed securities, and that their risk-management models would keep them from getting in trouble. We know how that turned out. I’m no expert on naked access, but I know that when Wall Street says “trust us,” I make sure they haven’t just stolen my wallet.

Along the same lines, here is an article in Slate describing how Wall Street has always complained about regulations that ended up helping the industry.

Shareholder Governance and Technology

In many of the discussions about executive compensation and Wall Street bonuses, it has been noted that shareholders are, theoretically, supposed to exercise some control, at least via election of directors. However, retail investors rarely take the time to read their proxy statements, let alone vote. This morning Eliot Spitzer (yes, that Eliot Spitzer) wrote an article in Slate listing several websites that are trying to use technology to both educate shareholders and to inspire them to get active and take control of the companies they own.

Financial Regulation Does Not Hinder Growth

David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal wrote a column today in which he proposes that the US has to choose between economic stability and economic growth. I am usually on board with Wessel, who does not follow the Journal’s usual slash and burn libertarianism, but in this case I think he’s wrong. His dichotomy is false.

The regulation that Wessel is discussing is financial regulation to curb the boom and bust cycle that we have just lived through. He asks whether “wise government rule to prevent market excesses” would also prevent the dynamic innovation that fuels economic growth. I answer emphatically NO.

As I noted yesterday, financial innovation is unrelated to business innovation. In yesterday’s post, I pointed out that the companies driving recent growth – the Googles of the world – have not depending on the innovations coming out of Wall Street. But today I will go even further. Between World War II and the S&L crisis, we had a long period of mostly financial stability, without the crises we’ve seen since then, and with a regulatory regime that had general consensus on Wall Street and in Washington. That long period of stability didn’t hinder economic growth; in fact, as the graph below shows it was one of the greatest growth periods in our nation.  Notice how much higher the growth is (the red lines) before the S&L crisis in the mid-1980′s.

Growth in GDP

Growth in GDP after WWII

I would argue that not only did financial stability and economic growth coexist during this period, but that the stability was actually helping the growth. After all, it’s a lot easier for companies to plan and budget if the financial markets are not booming and busting. And potential entrepreneurs are more likely to take the leap and start a new business if they aren’t worried about their retirement savings disappearing in a Wall Street flame-out.

So let’s not worry about financial regulation slowing down growth. Let’s focus on smart regulation that will spur growth.

Paul Volcker on Financial Regulation

Speaking of reasonable voices when it comes to financial regulation (see my post below), Paul Volcker is coming out strong for a much more rigorous set of regulations. Volcker ran the Federal Reserve before Alan Greenspan, and was considered a guru while Greenspan was still ladling Ayn Rand’s soup on Saturday nights.

Here is a link to an interview Volcker gave to the WSJ, and here is a link to a New Republic article by Simon Johnson about that interview.

The money quote from Volcker: “I have found very little evidence that vast amounts of innovation in financial markets in recent years have had a visible effect on the productivity of the economy.”

Again, that is a voice of reason. We all agree that capital markets are important to the economy, and that some financial innovation is a good thing. For example, developing ways for big companies to hedge their raw materials risks can help the economy. But developing ever more complicated derivatives and securities which are backed by securities which are backed by securities which are backed by assets?  How do those innovations help the economy?

This last point is the one that puts the lie to free market ideologues. They say that financial innovation is key to fueling the American economy. But financial innovation has nothing to do with the economy outside of Wall Street. Think about the great engines of American growth that these ideologues love to mention: Wal-Mart, Apple, Home Depot, Google or Tommy Hilfiger. They all grew large and hired thousands of people without building their business on credit default swaps or mortgage backed securities. None of them care about the hundredth of a penny reduction in spread that dark pool trading creates. Real innovation in the American economy is disassociated with Wall Street. The only thing that Wall Street innovation drives is Wall Street pay packages.

Reason & Financial Regulation

National Affairs recently ran an article on financial markets and regulation that was the most clear-headed, non-ideological commentary I have seen. The author, Nicole Gelinas, makes five main points:

  1. Capital markets are important because they allocate a key resource (money!) among various projects and sources
  2. A free market of buyers and sellers, or lenders and borrowers, is the most efficient form of capital market
  3. Some regulation is essential to the smooth working of a free market
  4. This includes regulation of leverage, speculation and complicated instruments
  5. Explicit or implicit government guarantees (eg. too big to fail) distort the free market

But read the article yourself. It’s not long, and it’s awesome.

Anger at Wall Street Grows

Just a few links to articles showing how fed up folks are getting with Wall Street.

  • The NY Times with a column from a former corporate lawyer calling for a windfall profits tax on Goldman Sachs
  • Salon telling Wall Street to “just shut up” and advocating limits to lobbying by financial firms
  • A new regulatory manifesto by a fed up investment banker
  • And just for fun, an attack on private equity’s quest for capital gains tax treatment

It’s starting to look like enough people are fed up that something might happen. Of course, the financial industry has already spent $350 million this year on lobbying, setting a record, and we know that politicians listen to money more than they listen to voters.

Geithner Blew It On AIG

Eliot Spitzer took Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to task in Slate yesterday, accusing him of incompetence in handling the AIG bailout, particularly the full payment to swap counterparties like Goldman Sachs. Spitzer’s basic position is that since the government had all the money, it should have played hardball and forced everyone to take a haircut, which is standard practice in workout situations.

As Spitzer says, “The entity providing financing to a near-bankrupt institution must always seek contributions from everyone else at risk.” He further notes ““In a workout context, the entity with cash—here, the government—can set the terms, and the other parties can either accept those terms or walk over to bankruptcy court.” Spitzer also references the auto company bailouts, in which the government did play hardball and forced all parties to make concessions.

Regular Thoughtbasket readers will recall my supportive comments (read them here and here) of the government’s aggressive position during the auto bailouts, and so it shouldn’t surprise you to learn that I agree with Spitzer here. Geithner should have been far more forceful in making everybody feel some pain for doing business with AIG. As Spitzer says:

“Pressuring Goldman and the other counterparties to offer concessions would have forced them to absorb the consequences of making suspect deals with an insurance company that was essentially a Ponzi scheme. Forcing them to give concessions would have been one small step toward ending the moral hazard the Fed had allowed to flourish for years.”

This seems like a good opportunity to point out the risk of having career bureaucrats deal with business situations like this. Geithner was out of his league going head to head with Wall Street. Geithner has only worked in governmental positions, except for a couple of years at Kissinger Associates, which is essentially a government position. On the other hand, the guys who ran the auto negotiations, Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom, have significant real-world experience, as investment bankers and, in the case of Bloom, negotiating workouts of failing steel companies. This is why any government agency that deals with business needs to have at least some businesspeople in high-level positions.

The Benefits of Financial Regulation

Harvard Magazine recently published an article regarding bank regulation. Like many articles (in fact, like the vast majority of articles I’ve seen), it makes the case that the current situation virtually guarantees another financial meltdown, since all major financial institutions now have implicit government backing, under the “too big to fail (TBTF)” doctrine. However, this article is a little different than many because it’s written not by a journalist, but by David Moss, a professor at Harvard Business School, which is, of course, the main source of the overconfident financiers who created the recent meltdown.

Professor Moss suggests a number of solutions to the TBTF problem and the moral hazard it creates. Most of these suggestions revolve around making the implicit guarantee an explicit one, with transparent limits and with the government charging for the guarantee. He would also add a tight regulatory regime.

The most interesting thing about Moss’ article was the graph I’ve inserted below. This graph has the date on the X axis, from 1864 to 2000. The Y axis shows the number of bank failures during each year. As you can see, bank failures were a regular occurrence in the American economy until 1932, when in the wake of the Great Depression a whole series of regulations were implemented, including Glass-Steagall. Then there is a long, calm period with very few bank failures, running up to the early 1980’s, when bank deregulation began under the Reagan administration. This graph speaks volumes.

Bank Failures Over Time

Bank Failures Over Time

Bank CEOs and Republicans are arguing strenuously against new bank regulations. CEOs have a good reason: they want to make as much money as possible. But Republicans are fighting regulation simply because they have an ideology that regulation is inherently bad. I think the last two years have proven this ideology wrong, but even if you don’t buy that, it’s hard to argue with the chart. So the question for Republicans is whether they are going to look at 136 years of data, or listen to the anti-government ramblings of people like former exterminator and creepy dancer Tom Delay, or fact-hindered quasi-philosopher Ayn Rand?

Bankers Moving for Higher Pay? Go Ahead!

A recent item in the Wall Street Journal talked about how British banks are pushing back against any sort of regulation on pay practices, saying that such regulation “will harm competitiveness, as jobs and tax revenues move to friendlier climates.” Wall Street banks are saying the exact same thing to Washington. My question is: where exactly are they going to move? Is the talent going to run to Bear Stearns or Lehman? Clearly not. After all the recent layoffs, there are fleets of unemployed bankers ready to replace anyone on a trading desk. But maybe the talent will move offshore, to Paris or Zurich or Tokyo – any place that doesn’t limit compensation. Really? They are going to take their kids out of Greenwich Country Day School, quit the country club, and move around the world? Some will, sure, but the majority won’t. The uproar from kids and spouses alone will force most of them to stay put. For those without families, I would think that the concept of living in a social democratic country makes moving a non-starter.