CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Citibank and BofA, two of the most aggressive over-lenders, quietly bailed out by Fed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Citibank and BofA, two of the most aggressive over-lenders, quietly bailed out by Fed

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Fed Bends Rules to Help Two Big Banks
By Peter Eavis
Fortune

Friday 24 August 2007

If the Federal Reserve is waiving a fundamental principle in banking regulation, the credit crunch must still be sapping the strength of America's biggest banks. Fortune's Peter Eavis documents an unusual Fed move.

New York - In a clear sign that the credit crunch is still affecting the nation's largest financial institutions, the Federal Reserve agreed this week to bend key banking regulations to help out Citigroup and Bank of America, according to documents posted Friday on the Fed's web site.

The Aug. 20 letters from the Fed to Citigroup and Bank of America state that the Fed, which regulates large parts of the U.S. financial system, has agreed to exempt both banks from rules that effectively limit the amount of lending that their federally-insured banks can do with their brokerage affiliates. The exemption, which is temporary, means, for example, that Citigroup's Citibank entity can substantially increase funding to Citigroup Global Markets, its brokerage subsidiary. Citigroup and Bank of America requested the exemptions, according to the letters, to provide liquidity to those holding mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities, and other securities.

This unusual move by the Fed shows that the largest Wall Street firms are continuing to have problems funding operations during the current market difficulties, according to banking industry skeptics. The Fed's move appears to support the view that even the biggest brokerages have been caught off guard by the credit crunch and don't have financing to deal with the resulting dislocation in the markets. The opposing, less negative view is that the Fed has taken this step merely to increase the speed with which the funds recently borrowed at the Fed's discount window can flow through to the bond markets, where the mortgage mess has caused a drying up of liquidity.

On Wednesday, Citibank and Bank of America said that they and two other banks accessed $500 million in 30-day financing at the discount window. A Citigroup spokesperson declined to comment. Bank of America dismissed the notion that Banc of America Securities is not well positioned to fund operations without help from the federally insured bank. "This is just a technicality to allow us to use our regular channels of business with funds from the Fed's discount window," says Bob Stickler, spokesperson for Bank of America. "We have no current plans to use the discount window beyond the $500 million announced earlier this week."

There is a good chance that other large banks, like J.P. Morgan, have been granted similar exemptions. The Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan didn't immediately comment.

The regulations in question effectively limit a bank's funding exposure to an affiliate to 10% of the bank's capital. But the Fed has allowed Citibank and Bank of America to blow through that level. Citigroup and Bank of America are able to lend up to $25 billion apiece under this exemption, according to the Fed. If Citibank used the full amount, "that represents about 30% of Citibank's total regulatory capital, which is no small exemption," says Charlie Peabody, banks analyst at Portales Partners.

So, how serious is this rule-bending? Very. One of the central tenets of banking regulation is that banks with federally insured deposits should never be over-exposed to brokerage subsidiaries; indeed, for decades financial institutions were legally required to keep the two units completely separate. This move by the Fed eats away at the principle.

Sure, the temporary nature of the move makes it look slightly less serious, but the Fed didn't give a date in the letter for when this exemption will end. In addition, the sheer size of the potential lending capacity at Citigroup and Bank of America - $25 billion each - is a cause for unease.

Indeed, this move to exempt Citigroup casts a whole new light on the discount window borrowing that was revealed earlier this week. At the time, the gloss put on the discount window advances was that they were orderly and almost symbolic in nature. But if that were the case, why the need to use these exemptions to rush the funds to the brokerages?

Expect the discount window borrowings to become a key part of the Fed's recovery strategy for the financial system. The Fed's exemption will almost certainly force its regulatory arm to sharpen its oversight of banks' balance sheets, which means banks will almost certainly have to mark down asset values to appropriate levels a lot faster now. That's because there is no way that the Fed is going to allow easier funding to lead to a further propping up of asset prices.

Don't forget: The Federal Reserve is in crisis management at the moment. However, it doesn't want to show any signs of panic. That means no rushed cuts in interest rates. It also means that it wants banks to quickly take the big charges that will inevitably come from holding toxic debt securities. And it will do all it can behind the scenes to work with the banks to help them get through this upheaval. But waiving one of the most important banking regulations can only add nervousness to the market. And that's what the Fed did Monday in these disturbing letters to the nation's two largest banks.
From here.
post #2 of 16
If I understood any of this, I'm sure I would be outraged.
post #3 of 16
I think yt is still holding out hope that we can be brought up to her level. You've got to take baby steps, yt. We're slow, but we'll get there.
post #4 of 16
In plain English - the Fed is abandoning sound banking principals to bail out large multinational banking conglomerates who are in over their head.

Citigroup and BoA are currently hanging their capital out over the edge at oh, 200% of what they should be, if we go by past guidelines.
post #5 of 16
Free market! Let businesses dictate their own policies! No government interference! Best regulation is no regul.... OH SHIT GIVE US HELP PLEASE WE FUCKED UP.

That said, as much as I hate banks and rich-ass fucknuts, if the nation's largest banks were to suffer some sort of collapse, that'd pretty much ruin the lives of a great many individuals who have their money wrapped up in these institutions.

It also proves what fucking dumbshits run these corporations. I know diddly-dick about the economy and even I was predicting that the inevitable - let me repeat - INEVITABLE housing crash was going to have a profound impact on the excessively freewheeling economy. Preparations! Ha! What do you mean scale back, the good times will never end!
post #6 of 16
I'm a banker (not at BofA or CitiBank), and it's amazing how many people have come in to open accounts with us recently just to spread their funds around. Remember, FDIC insurance will only cover you up to 100K if the bank fails...

Thank God we weren't involved in the subprime crash.
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werbal_Kint
That said, as much as I hate banks and rich-ass fucknuts, if the nation's largest banks were to suffer some sort of collapse, that'd pretty much ruin the lives of a great many individuals who have their money wrapped up in these institutions.
I don't know that Citibank and BoA were in danger of "collapse" - more in danger of "constriction of obscene profits"
post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 
These institutions went into this with orgiastic fervor. This is greed run amok. This is also "heckuva job Brownie" all over again. When lobbyists and cronies are put in charge of "regulation" the people inevitably suffer, yet the architects of this disaster face no consequences.

ps. to Goldberg and Greg David,
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werbal_Kint
It also proves what fucking dumbshits run these corporations. I know diddly-dick about the economy and even I was predicting that the inevitable - let me repeat - INEVITABLE housing crash was going to have a profound impact on the excessively freewheeling economy. Preparations! Ha! What do you mean scale back, the good times will never end!
They're not dumbshits. They were, and still are, hoping to squeeze out profits until the well runs dry, then bail and leave someone else to clean up the mess.

The single biggest problem with the current economic system and giant corporations is that it rewards executives for running failing corporations, if they can rack up short term profits first. Enron is merely the most visible and ignominious example of this. It's essentially the principle on which Bush has been running the US, too.
post #10 of 16
I got some props for knowing what was going on - um, not so much; but when the story says "lending out x is sound banking policy" and then points out that a bank is lending out 3 times x, you don't need to be a genius to figure out that it is not the wisest move.
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
The single biggest problem with the current economic system and giant corporations is that it rewards executives for running failing corporations, if they can rack up short term profits first. Enron is merely the most visible and ignominious example of this. It's essentially the principle on which Bush has been running the US, too.
No accountability.

Bottom line in most cases is that if Joe Punchclock got results similar to what more than a few multi-million dollar salary/stock option CEOs do, he'd be fired by lunchtime.
post #12 of 16
The Federal Reserve was created as a bailout institution, numb nuts. They were never an institution of sound banking, and neither is the system we have of fractional reserves. It's inherently fraudulent, which is why the Fed creates money out of nothing just to bail out banks.
post #13 of 16
The Federal Reserve was created because large banks could no longer hold up the economey on their own. If it didn't exist right now Citibank and BoA would be going hate in hand to have billionaires pay off their credit problems
post #14 of 16
Werbal pretty much nailed it, except that the banks knew could take risks they wouldn't on their own, counting on the goverment to bail them out before anything truly bad happened. Of course, if they got lucky and made a bundle, that's great, too, but the whole thing was a freeroll. With more government regulation there would certainly be a rule against this, and with less, the banks would have to accept the risk for themselves and be more (correctly) conservative with their lending in the first place. We're just in that exact spot that maximizes corruption and makes things worse for all but a few.
post #15 of 16
Thread Starter 
The subprime meltown chain reaction is broken down by Newsweek here.
post #16 of 16
This is pissing me right off. Banks are being bailed out with taxpayer's money all over the world, including at the ECB. Monbiot has a good article about the current financial system here. You may not agree with the conspiracy aspects of the piece, but I have a hard time arguing against the general thrust (that there is no alternative because there is nowhere where anyone can learn about alternatives).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Citibank and BofA, two of the most aggressive over-lenders, quietly bailed out by Fed