CFTC CHAIRMAN GENSLER MAKES REMARKS ON " A TRANSFORMED MARKETPLACE"

FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Remarks of Chairman Gary Gensler at a D.C. Bar Event - "A Transformed Marketplace"

December 11, 2013

Thank you, Alice and Peter, for your kind introductions. I also want to thank the DC Bar for inviting me here to speak today.

Five years ago, when President-elect Obama asked me to serve, the U.S. economy was in a free fall.

Five years ago, the financial system and the financial regulatory system failed the American public.

Five years ago, the unregulated swaps market was at the center of the crisis.

Five years ago, when Tim Geithner, Mary Schapiro and I sat down in the presidential transition offices with yellow pads to contemplate our upcoming confirmation hearings, we knew that modernizing the financial system wouldn’t be easy. We knew that ever since our founding, democracy is noisy and messy.

We knew, though, that we had to come together to bring common-sense rules of the road to the markets.

With 94 percent of private sector jobs outside of finance, President Obama was looking for solutions to ensure finance better serves the rest of the economy.

I was honored to be asked to join the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), our nation’s futures market regulator.

The reforms of the 1930s had tasked the CFTC to swim in a very important lane – derivatives. The futures market has allowed farmers, ranchers and producers to lock in the price of a commodity since the 1860s. The derivatives lane, though, got a lot deeper a century later with the emergency of the vast swaps market. Both futures and swaps are essential to our economy and the way that businesses and investors manage risk.

The President placed great confidence in the CFTC when he asked the agency to help bring much-needed transparency and oversight to the dark, closed swaps market.

This confidence in the CFTC was well placed. As we’ve seen time and again in our nation’s history, when faced with real challenges, we Americans from different walks of life and perspectives find a way to come together to solve them.

The talented CFTC staff and my fellow Commissioners – Mike Dunn, Jill Sommers, Bart Chilton, Scott O’Malia and Mark Wetjen – really have delivered for the American public.

The CFTC has finalized 68 rules, orders and guidances. We have completed nearly all of the agency’s rulemakings, and the initial major compliance dates are behind us.

These reforms took into account nearly 60,000 public comments and input from more than 2,200 meetings and 21 public roundtables.

During this process, the Commission largely found consensus. In fact, two-thirds of our final actions have been unanimous, and nearly 85 percent have been bipartisan. Even when we disagreed, I believe that we did so agreeably.

Now, bright lights of transparency are shining on the $380 trillion swaps market.

Now, a majority of the swaps market is being centrally cleared – lowering risk and bringing access to anyone wishing to compete.

Now, 91 swap dealers have registered and – for the first time – are being overseen for their swaps activity.

Five years after the financial crisis, the swaps marketplace truly has been transformed.

Transparency

Foremost, the swaps marketplace has been transformed with transparency.

First, the public can see the price and volume of each swap transaction as it occurs.

This information is available, free of charge, to everyone in the public. The data is listed in real time – like a modern-day tickertape – on the websites of the three swap data repositories (SDRs).

Second, building on the CFTC’s long tradition of promoting transparency, we recently began publishing a Weekly Swaps Report to provide the public with a detailed view of the swaps marketplace.

Third, regulators also have gained transparency into the details on each of the 1.8 million transactions and positions in the SDRs.

Fourth, starting this fall, the public – for the first time –is benefitting from new transparency, impartial access and competition on regulated swap trading platforms.

We now have 19 temporarily registered swap execution facilities where more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in swaps trading is occurring on average per day.

This pre-trade transparency lowers costs for investors, businesses and consumers, as it shifts information from dealers to the broader public.

Fifth, I anticipate that by mid-February, the congressionally mandated trade execution requirement will become effective for a significant portion of the interest rate and credit index swap markets.

Clearing

The swaps market also has been transformed with mandated central clearing for financial entities as well as dealers.

Central clearing lowers risk and fosters competition by allowing customers ready access to the market.

Clearinghouses have operated successfully at the center of the futures market for over 100 years – through two world wars, the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis.

Reforms have taken us from only 21 percent of the interest rate swaps market being cleared five years ago to more than 70 percent of the market this fall. More than 60 percent of new credit index swaps are being cleared.

Further, we no longer have the significant time delays that were once associated with swaps clearing.

Five years ago, swaps clearing happened either at the end of the day or even just once a week. This left a significant period of bilateral credit risk in the market, undermining a key benefit of central clearing.

Now reforms require pre-trade credit checks and straight-through processing for swaps trades intended for clearing.

With 99 percent of swaps clearing occurring within 10 seconds, market participants no longer have to worry about credit risk when entering into swap trades intended to be cleared.

Swap Dealers

The market also has been transformed for swap dealers.

Five years ago, swap dealers had no specific requirements with regard to their swap dealing activity. AIG’s downfall was a clear example of what happens with no registration or licensing requirement for such dealers.

Today, all of the world’s largest financial institutions in the global swaps market are coming under reforms.

These reforms include new business conduct standards for risk management, documentation of swap transactions, confirmations, sales practices, recordkeeping and reporting.

With the approval of the Volcker Rule yesterday, swap dealers associated with banking entities will have to comply with new risk-reducing requirements prohibiting proprietary trading.

Further, the transformed marketplace covers the far-flung operations of U.S. enterprises, including their offshore branches and guaranteed affiliates.

The President and Congress were clear in financial reform that we had to learn the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis.

AIG nearly brought down the U.S. economy through its guaranteed affiliate operating under a French bank license in London.

Lehman Brothers had 3,300 legal entities when it failed. Its main overseas affiliate was guaranteed here in the United States, and it had 130,000 outstanding swap transactions.

The lessons of modern finance are clear. If reform does not cover the far flung operations of U.S. enterprises, trades inevitably would just be booked in offshore branches or affiliates. If reform does not cover these far-flung operations, rather than reforming the financial system, we simply would be providing a significant loophole.

Benchmark Interest Rates

Five years ago, as the public now knows, multiple banks were pervasively rigging the world’s most important benchmark interest rates.

The public trust has been violated through bad actors readily manipulating these benchmark interest rates.

I wish I could say that this won’t happen again, but I can’t.

As LIBOR and Euribor are not anchored in observable transactions, they are more akin to fiction than fact.

That’s the fundamental challenge that the CFTC and law enforcement agencies around the globe have so dramatically revealed.

We’ve made progress addressing governance and conflicts of interest regarding such benchmarks. But this alone will not resolve the fundamental vulnerability of these benchmarks – the lack of transactions in the interbank market underlying them.

That is why the work of the Financial Stability Board to find replacements for LIBOR and to recommend a means to transition to such alternatives is so critical. The CFTC looks forward to continuing work with the international community on these much-needed reforms.

Customer Protection

Market events in the last five years highlighted the need to further ensure for the protection of customer funds. Segregation and the protection of customer funds is the core foundation of the futures and swaps markets.

The CFTC went through a two-year process with market participants – and six sets of finalized rules – to comprehensively reform the customer protection regime for futures and swaps.

Resources

One of the most remarkable things about the CFTC is that today, it’s only five percent larger than it was 20 years ago.

Since then, though, this small, effective agency has taken on the job of overseeing the $380 trillion swaps market, which is a dozen times the size of the futures market we have historically overseen. Further, the futures market itself has grown fivefold since the 1990s.

Due to the budget challenges in Washington, not only has the CFTC been shrinking, but we had to notify employees of administrative furloughs.

Though the agency has yet to secure necessary funding from Congress, I continue to have faith that one day the CFTC will be funded at levels aligned with its vastly expanded mission.

The Journey Ahead

Though the CFTC has completed nearly all the rules of the road for the swaps market, reform is an ongoing journey.

Just as our nation has come together on financial reform these last five years, our regulations will continuously need to evolve. We always need to be open to changes in the markets and how best to promote transparency, competition and protect the public.

The journey is not over in transitioning to a replacement for LIBOR or in adequately funding the CFTC.

Further, as Tim, Mary and I understood five years ago, democracy – and reform – can be noisy and messy.

As market participants look to maximize their revenues and customer support, they, at times, may look to arbitrage our rules versus other rules around the globe.

I think that we’re in very firm setting on clearing, data reporting, real-time reporting, and business conduct reforms -- all of which have been implemented. There are bound to be further challenges, however, from the financial community with regard to the appropriate level of pre-trade transparency on trading platforms, as well as the scope of the cross-border application of reform.

Conclusion

I’d like to close by saying I couldn’t be more proud of the dedicated group of public servants at the CFTC. I am honored to have served along with them during such a remarkable time in the history of the agency.

Our nation benefits from free market capitalism, but it’s critical that we have common-sense rules of road to ensure that finance best serves the public at large.

On a personal note, as this is my last public speech as Chairman of the CFTC, I want to thank both Stephanie Allen and her predecessor Scott Schneider, the speechwriters whose cleverness and agility with words, not to mention the willingness to work with me, has allowed me these last five years to bring transparency to what we’re doing at the CFTC.

I also want to extend my appreciation to all the members of the media who have reported on us and followed us during this remarkable journey these last five years. As always, I’ll do one more press avail after taking questions from the audience.

Thank you.

REMARKS BY CFTC COMMISSIONER O'MALIA AT CFTC COMPLIANCE FORUM

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
Keynote Address by Commissioner Scott D. O'Malia, Edison Electric Institute CFTC Compliance Forum, Washington, DC
October 17, 2013

The topic of today's conference is "Compliance and Implementation Issues." I must say such a topic gives us plenty of room to have a wide-ranging discussion, as there are so many questions and concerns regarding industry compliance and on-going implementation.

As we all know, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted following the G-20 agreement in Pittsburgh in September 2009 to undertake comprehensive financial reform. The G-20 agreement proposed four main objectives of derivatives reform. First, report all data to a data repository. Second, require that all standardized derivatives contracts be exchange traded "as appropriate." Third, require clearing to be done through central counter parties. Fourth, impose higher collateral charges for all uncleared over-the-counter (OTC) products.

Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the CFTC has been busy with an aggressive schedule of rule promulgation. Today we have finalized just over 60 rules including Dodd-Frank and non-Dodd Frank rule.

This new regulatory regime has had a profound impact on market structure as it has imposed new obligations, higher levels of transparency, and higher standards for risk management. Many of these new rules will have a positive impact on financial markets.

However, I have serious concerns about the Commission’s rule making process and schedule, as well as the statutory foundation of many rules and their overall impact on end-users.

Today, I would like to discuss three topics. First, I would like to address the implementation of the rules, both in terms of compliance already under way and what we need to think about going forward. Second, I would like to discuss the regulatory impact on end-users. Finally, I would like to discuss my concerns about the Commission’s preparedness to oversee the implementation of the Dodd-Frank regulatory regime.

The Process: Sacrificing Transparency and Certainty for Speed

From the beginning of my time at the Commission, I have been very concerned with the Commission's rulemaking process. As you may know, I have been disappointed with the Commission’s failure to develop a transparent rulemaking schedule that would enable market participants to plan for compliance with the massive new obligations imposed by these rules. In addition, I believe the Commission has rushed the rulemaking process, prioritizing getting rules done fast over getting them done right. This approach has compromised the legal soundness and consistency of our rules.

Stark evidence of the Commission’s flawed rules, and their unachievable compliance deadlines, can be seen in the massive number of exemptions and staff no-action letters issued to provide relief from them. To date, we have issued over 130 exemptions and staff no-action letters. That amounts to more than two exemptions for every rule passed. In nearly two dozen cases, the relief provided is for an indefinite period of time – thus making them de facto rulemakings, which didn't go through the Administrative Procedure Act or proper cost-benefit analysis. It is clear that the Commission has abused the no-action relief process.

Market participants are confused regarding the application of our rules, and how or when they must be applied. Further, since the Commission doesn't vote on staff no-action letters, they don't appear in the Federal Register. And you won't find the exemptive letters in our rulebook either. This lack of transparency and consistency will drive a compliance officer crazy.

One area where the Commission has made one of its biggest process fouls is the lack of robust cost-benefit analysis. Without a doubt, the comprehensive nature of the Dodd-Frank regulatory regime will have a significant cost impact on all market participants, and yet the Commission has failed to conduct appropriate and rigorous quantitative and qualitative analysis of our proposed rules. Understanding whether the benefits of the rules outweigh the costs is a common sense tool to determine the least burdensome solution to the problem.

The Commission has so far been able to get away with such inadequate cost-benefit analysis because the current governing statute sets a low bar. I support Congressional efforts to revise our statutory cost-benefit obligations in order to require the Commission to undertake a more rigorous quantitative and qualitative analysis, putting us on par with other federal agencies. I support Chairman Conaway's efforts (H.R. 1003) and hope the House and Senate will pass this legislation.

Implementation: What's Coming

While I have a longer list of process fouls committed by the Commission, I would like to turn to upcoming rules that will have a significant impact on end-users in particular.

The Commission is currently considering the position limit rule do-over. When I say the Commission, I mean that literally. During the shutdown there is no staff available to discuss this rule proposal. We can't make revisions. We can't ask questions about the rationale or justification. We can't even discuss with staff whether or not the proposed limits would have an appropriate impact to curb "excessive speculation."

The Commission is pursuing a dual track on position limits. Later this year, an appeals court will hear our argument urging it to overturn a federal district court’s ruling to vacate the original position limit rule. The district court found that the Commission failed to provide a finding of necessity as directed by the statute. Simultaneously, we are drafting a nearly identical rule arguing more strenuously that Congress made us do it, and that Congress really didn't want to know whether these rules are "necessary" or "appropriate."

Frankly, I find it interesting that the proposed rule will argue on one hand that Congress wanted position limits and that we aren't bound to apply an appropriateness standard – and then, on the other hand, argue in the cost-benefit analysis that these rules are well considered and will have the intended impact based on our analysis.

Another important rulemaking that will be before the Commission shortly is the application of capital and margin for all OTC trades. While I am pleased that the international community has worked together to make the standards consistent, make no mistake: these rules will increase the cost of hedging. End-users will be spared from mandatory margin exchange. However, nobody will receive a break from the new capital charges. These are new costs imposed on banks to offset the risk posed by OTC trades. Needless to say, these costs will be passed on to end-users.

I agree with Sean Owens, an economist with Woodbine Associates, who stated that under Dodd-Frank, "end users face a tradeoff between efficient, cost-effective risk transfer and the need for hedge customization. The cost implicit in this trade off include: regulatory capital, funding initial margin, market liquidity and structural factors."1

There is no doubt that these new requirements will have serious economic consequences for financial markets. And regulators should not take this lightly. In an effort to coordinate with international regulators, the Commission will re-propose its capital and margin rules. But even under the more accommodating margin requirements, the Commission must evaluate additional costs to end-users by conducting an in-depth cost-benefit analysis.

Happy Anniversary: 1st Anniversary of Futurization

It was one year ago, almost to the day, that the energy markets switched from trading swaps to futures. This huge shift was triggered by the then-impending effective date of the swap and swap dealer definitions. To avoid trading swaps and being caught in the unnecessary, costly and highly complex de minimis calculation imposed on swap dealers, energy firms shifted their trading from swaps to futures, literally overnight.

Based on the complexity of our swaps rules and the cost-efficiency of trading futures, it makes sense that participants would make this change. I'm interested to hear more from end-users like you how this shift has impacted your hedging strategies.

I must warn you that there are several more changes coming up that will continue to impact energy markets. First, the Commission is considering a draft futures block rule that will be proposed to limit the availability of block trades.

Second, as I noted before, OTC margin and capital rules will increase the cost of OTC bilateral deals. This draft rule should be published by the end of the year.

Third, the European Union (EU) is considering whether it will find acceptable the U.S. rules allowing a minimum one-day margin liquidation requirement for futures and swaps on energy products. Europe might not recognize U.S. centralized counterparties as qualified and, as a result, ban EU persons from accessing these markets. The EU is insisting on a two-day margin liquidation minimum. I am told that this would have the practical effect of increasing margin requirements for energy trades by 40 percent. I’m not sure how this will be resolved, but I suspect it will be closely tied to U.S. recognition of the European regulatory regime.

End-Users

Now let me turn to my second topic: how our rules treat end-users.

Congress was very clear about protecting end-users from Dodd-Frank's expansive regulatory reach. As a result, many end-users assumed that they wouldn't be impacted by these rules. Clearly, they are no longer under such misconceptions.

The swap dealer definition is a good example of how the Commission failed to accurately interpret Dodd-Frank and broadly applied the swap dealer definition to all market participants. The Commission ignored the express statutory mandate to exclude end-users from its reach. The swap dealer final rule requires entities to navigate through a complex set of factors on a trade-by-trade basis, rather than provide a bright line test. While I appreciate that the Commission set an $8 billion de minimis level to exclude trades from a dealer designation, it remains challenging to determine what is in and what is out from this safe harbor.

As part of the complexity of the swap dealer definition, the Commission has applied inconsistent and incoherent requirements around bona fide hedging as part of the dealer calculation. The hedge exclusion from the dealer definition applies only to physical, but not financial, transactions. The Commission should apply a consistent definition for hedging.

Another complexity that the Commission has imposed on end-users is the definition of a volumetric option. Specifically, to determine whether a volumetric option is a forward or a swap, the rule applies a seven-part test. But the real kicker is that under the seventh factor, contracts with embedded volumetric optionality may qualify for the forward contract exclusion only if exercise of the optionality is based on physical factors that are outside the control of the parties. This is in contradiction to how volumetric options have been traditionally used by market participants, makes no sense and provides absolutely no certainty for market participants.

The Commission has seemingly gone out of its way to create complex rules that generally result in an outcome of heads we win, tails you lose. We need to clean up the definition and create reliable and well-defined safe harbors. If we don't, I would encourage Congress to revisit the statute.

Commission Readiness: The Consequences of a “Ready, Fire, Aim” Approach

Let me move now to my third main topic: Commission readiness to properly oversee the implementation of its Dodd-Frank regulatory regime. There are two questions I have regarding this issue. The first question is pretty straightforward: is the Commission prepared to effectively oversee the new swaps markets? I believe the answer to this question is "no."

Take the area of registration. The Commission’s new swaps regime has created multiple new categories of Commission registrants, and in each category there has been an inconsistent and uncertain process with the bar constantly moving for applicants. For example, it has been ten months since the first swap dealer application arrived. Today, we have 89 temporarily registered applications totaling over 180,000 pages and we haven’t signed off on single application as complete or final.

With regard to swap data repository (SDR) registration, it has taken the Commission eight to ten months to register just three SDRs under temporary status. We have exceeded our own self-imposed limit of 180 days in some cases and we still haven’t issued a final SDR determination.

As for the registration of swap execution facilities (SEFs), while we have registered 18 entities under a temporary basis, I can only imagine how long it will take for a SEF to secure final approval, especially when we admit that we didn’t read the rulebooks in order to meet the arbitrary October 2 effective date. My guess is that it will be a long and painful process as we insist on evolving revisions to SEF rulebooks while trading is going on.

Another area where the Commission has not been adequately prepared to do its job is in connection with swap data being submitted under new reporting regulations. Despite imposing aggressive compliance requirements on the market, the Commission doesn't have the tools in place to effectively utilize the new data being reported to SDRs, and it doesn't have a surveillance system in either the futures or swaps market that I would regard as adequate or modern.

Today, the data we receive from SDRs requires extensive cleaning and changes to make it useful. As chairman of the Commission’s Technology Advisory Committee (TAC), I have devoted significant TAC attention and resources to aid this effort. Stemming from our TAC meeting in April, a working group including Commission staff and the SDRs has been established and is working to harmonize data fields to aid in our ability to easily aggregate and analyze data across SDR platforms. It will take time before we are able to access, aggregate and analyze data efficiently.

I am also disappointed with our current stance on the oversight of SEFs. Despite the October 2 start-up date for SEFs, the Commission relies on self-regulatory organizations to send data via Excel spreadsheet. There is no aggregation capacity and I am not aware of any plan to automate this process for the less than two thousand swap trades that occur on a daily basis.

My second question: is the Commission sufficiently familiar with the readiness of the market to adapt to our rules? The answer to this question is also "no." As I discussed earlier, evidence of this failure can be found in the Commission’s extensive use of no-action relief tied to arbitrary deadlines. The Commission needs to do a better job of understanding the significant compliance challenges facing market participants as a result of new regulations.

Pre-Trade Credit Checks: Time for the TAC to Revisit the Issue

Let me give you a brief example of one challenge we are dealing with today. The Commission has been working toward a goal of straight-through processing of trades and clearing to prevent any trade failures due to credit issues. Just recently, the Commission has started insisting that SEFs provide functionality to pre-check all trades for adequate credit at the futures commission merchant (FCM) to guarantee a trade. In general, I support this objective. However, market participants were not prepared to comply with this new requirement by October 2, the date SEFs began operation.

Consistent with the Commission’s practice of issuing last-minute ad-hoc relief, the day before the SEF start-up date, staff issued a delay of the pre-trade credit checks for one month until November 1. We are just two weeks away from this new deadline and it is clear that not all SEFs, FCMs, credit hubs and customers are fully interconnected. Without end-to-end fully tested connectivity, I suspect trades will continue to be done over the phone – stalling limit order book trading.

This is a topic that we discussed at the recent TAC meeting on September 12. It was clear at that meeting that the pieces were not in place and additional time is needed.

With the arbitrary November 1 deadline looming and the Commission yet to provide confused swap market participants with necessary guidance on a host of unresolved issues, often stemming from a lack of clarity in the SEF rules, I believe additional time is required. The Commission has not provided adequate time to complete the on-boarding process and conduct the technology testing and validation that is necessary. We should also consider phasing in participants, similar to our approach with clearing, in order to avoid a big bang integration issue.

Again, I offer to use the TAC to identify a path forward if that will be useful, but the issues identified in September still remain.

Conclusion

In many respects it is quite remarkable the work that has been accomplished – by both the Commission and the market – to put in place trade reporting, mandatory clearing, and now the first stages of swap exchange trading. However, the Commission process by which all of this was accomplished is certainly not to be replicated.

We need to continue to make sure we follow Congressional direction to protect end-users and focus more on outcomes rather than setting arbitrary timetables tied to an individual agenda. Rather than relying on the ad-hoc no-action process, the Commission should take responsibility of fixing the unworkable rules – swap data reporting and the swap dealer definition come to mind.

If we are going to impose rules, let’s make sure they are informed by data and will not interfere with the fundamental function of hedging and price discovery in the markets – I’m thinking about position limits and our proposed futures blocks.

Finally, let's keep an eye on the costs – putting these markets out of reach for commercial hedgers doesn't help anyone. Let's sharpen the pencil and consider all the options. There is no reason why we should not be able to quantify the solution as the most cost-effective rule for the market.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.

1 See Sean Owens, Optimizing the Cost of Customization, Review of Futures Market (July 2012).

Last Updated: October 17, 2013

REMARKS BY FDIC VICE CHAIRMAN HOENIG ON 5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF LEHMAN BROTHERS MELTDOWN

FROM:  FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 
Lehman Brothers: Looking Five Years Back and Ten Years Ahead
Remarks by Thomas M. Hoenig, Vice Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Presented to the National Association of Corporate Directors, Texas TriCities Chapter Conference, Houston, Texas 
September 2013 
Introduction

A fundamental principle in economics is that incentives matter.  If the rules of the game provide advantages to some over others, protect players against the fallout of taking on excessive risk, or enable irresponsible behavior, we can be confident that the choices people make will be imprudent and the results of the misaligned incentives will be bad.

In the US financial system these conditions were in force during the decade leading to the Great Recession. It was a decade when monetary policy was highly accommodative; when government protections and subsidies were extended to ever more financial activities; when market discipline became a buzz word rather than a tool; and when the competitive advantage bestowed on some sectors of the industry led to a less competitive market.

More concerning is that five years after the crisis, despite new laws and regulations, we are replicating many of the conditions that contributed to the crisis, but we somehow are expecting things to end differently.   How so?

This morning, I will discuss the parallels between this earlier period and now, and I will make a case for a bolder set of actions to address weaknesses in a system that continues to impede our financial markets and economy.

Setting the Stage: Low Interest Rates

Extended periods of exceptionally low interest rates undermine a sound economy.  Their short-term effects on the economy can be favorable and dramatic, which creates a significant temptation for policymakers to keep rates low for a considerable period.   However, history suggests that extended periods of abnormally low rates often lead to negative long-run effects as they weaken credit standards, encourage the heavy use of credit, and too often adversely affect financial and economic stability.

For example, starting with the Mexican financial crisis of 1994 through the Asian and Russian crises of the late ’90s, aggressive expansionary US monetary policy was used with apparent success.  In each instance, the immediate crisis was staunched, markets continued operating, and the economy bounced back. Such success led to the expectation that monetary policy could clean up the effects of any financial excess or imbalance that the US economy might develop.   Low interest rates became the expected remedy that would stimulate the economy and avoid recession, or that would prevent the proliferation of a crisis.

Having been successful during the ’90s, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), "doubled down" its use of low interest rates during the subsequent decade as it encountered financial and economic weaknesses. Following the collapse of the tech bubble, the real federal funds rate was negative for most of the period 2002 through 2005. It is noteworthy that in June 2003, the nominal federal funds rate was lowered from 1 1/4 percent to 1 percent and remained there for nearly a year, despite the fact that the economy grew at a rate of nearly 7 percent in the quarter following this rate reduction.

Because there were no signs of accelerating inflation, the FOMC felt confident that there was no need to quickly reverse policy, so it remained either highly or relatively accommodative well into the recovery. The first increase in the federal funds rate occurred in June 2004, only after evidence was overwhelming that economic activity had begun to accelerate. Not until March 2006 did the federal funds rate reach its long-term average level.

Within an environment of a highly accommodative monetary policy and sustained low interest rates, credit growth accelerated and serious financial imbalances developed. During the period 2002 to the end of 2007, total debt outstanding for households and financial and non-financial firms increased from $22 trillion to $37 trillion, or almost 70 percent. In hindsight, of course, it seems obvious that problems would result.

This history begs the question, therefore, of how current monetary policy might affect economic and financial conditions in 2013 and beyond. The FOMC again is fully engaged in conducting a highly accommodative monetary policy. The target federal funds rate is currently zero to 25 basis points. Through the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing policy, its balance sheet and bank reserves have ballooned to nearly four times the size they were in January 2008. As a result, the real federal funds rate has been negative for most of the period from 2008 to the present.

As with the earlier period, inflation in the US remains relatively subdued, facilitating continued low rates. However, the US also is experiencing significant price increases in various assets, including, for example, land, stocks, and bonds. Banks and the entire financial sector are exposed, directly and indirectly, to significant negative price shocks in nearly all interest rate-sensitive sectors. Also, as capital desperately seeks out yield, there have been significant US dollar capital flows across the globe, causing what appears to be increased financial vulnerability, uncertainty, and instability.

Thus, the actions the FOMC has taken since the crisis ended are more aggressive and will be in place far longer than those taken in the early part of the last decade.

Those who support current money policy insist that circumstances are different this time - a phrase itself that should cause alarm. They suggest that policymakers have better tools to deal with imbalances in the form of renewed market discipline and macro-prudential supervision. However, as I describe below, financial conditions within the system are not as different than many presume. Market discipline has not been strengthened, and macro-prudential supervision may be a new name but it is hardly a tool that was unavailable in the earlier period.

Extending the Safety Net: Adding Risk to the System

During the early part of the last decade, at the time the US was engaging in a systematic expansion of monetary policy, it had just extended the public safety net to an ever wider set of financial activities and firms. In 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, which confined the safety net – defined as access to the Federal Reserve liquidity facility and FDIC insurance -- to commercial banks. In its place, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed to allow the melding of commercial banking, investment banking, and broker-dealer activities. These changes were intended to enhance the market's role in the economy, to increase competition, and to create a more diversified, stable system.

In practice, however, Gramm-Leach-Bliley undermined that very goal. It allowed firms with access to the public safety net to control a much wider array of financial products and activities, and it provided them a sizable advantage over financial firms outside the safety net. It enabled firms inside the net to fund themselves at lower costs and expand their use of debt -- that is, to lever-up. Under such conditions, firms outside the net, to survive, found it necessary to join this favored group through mergers or other actions. The result is a more highly concentrated industry that is more dependent on government support and where, in the end, the failure of any one firm threatens the broader economy.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley fundamentally changed the financial industry’s business model. Previously, commercial banking involved principally the payments system that transfers money around the country and world, and the intermediation process that transforms short-term deposits into longer-term loans. That model cultivated a culture of win-win, where the success of the borrower meant success to the lender in terms of the repayment of the loan and growth of the credit relationship.

After Gramm-Leach-Bliley, as broker dealer and trading activities began to dominate the banking model, the culture became one of win-lose, with the parties placing bets on asset price movements or directional changes in activity. Thus, broadening the range of activities and risks that banking firms could bring within the safety net changed the risk/return trade-off and significantly changed the incentive structure in banking. While such non-traditional commercial banking activities are essential to the market's function, placing them within the safety net became lethal to the industry and to the economy.

A related effect of the government’s rich financial subsidy was a significant increase in industry leverage, especially among the largest firms. Between 2000 and 2008, the leverage among the 10 largest US firms reached unprecedented levels, as the ratio of tangible assets to tangible common equity capital increased from 22 to 1 to levels exceeding 47 to 1.1

Once the financial panic was set in motion and confidence was lost, firms were forced to rapidly deleverage their balance sheets, creating a chaotic market. The effects were channeled through a highly interconnected financial system to the real economy, causing significant declines in asset values, wealth, and jobs. Between 2008 and the end of 2009, well over 8 million jobs were lost within the US economy alone, and containing the crisis required enormous amounts of FDIC and taxpayer support.

Now, five years after the crisis, we should not ignore that many of the conditions that undermined the economy then still remain within our financial system. These conditions include: a few dominant financial firms – those that are too big to fail - controlling an ever greater portion of financial assets within the US; continued government protections and related subsidies; and the continued reliance on a business model with its heavy use of debt over equity and increased risk in the pursuit of higher, subsidized returns on equity.

Yes, the Dodd-Frank Act introduced hundreds of regulations designed to control the actions of financial firms. It gives financial supervisors increased oversight of firms and activities, and it requires the Federal Reserve and the FDIC to oversee the development of resolution programs for the largest firms. However, when you work through the details, the law and rules mostly reiterate powers long available to supervisors. It adds numerous rules and moves responsibilities among regulators, but it makes no fundamental change in the industry’s structure or incentives that drive firms’ actions.

Dodd-Frank adds new supervisory and resolution authorities intended to end bail outs of financial firms and related subsidies. However, this is an old promise and has yet to be successfully implemented. Consider that the US financial system is more concentrated today and the largest firms hold more market power than prior to the crisis. The 10 largest financial firms control nearly 70 percent of the industry's assets, up from 54 percent in 2000. The eight globally systemic US banking firms hold in assets the equivalent of 90 percent of GDP, when you place the fair value of derivatives onto their balance sheets. Moreover, given the breadth and complexity of activities of these firms, they remain highly interconnected and the failure of any one will likely cause a systemic crisis, demanding government intervention.

Dodd-Frank introduces new rules designed to check the expansion of the subsidy. The Volcker Rule, for example, is supposed to move bank trading activities away from the insured bank. However, the rule has yet to be implemented, and even if it is fully implemented, it allows broker-dealer activities to stay within the same corporate entity, which itself benefits from the government’s safety net.

Consistent with these observations, there is a long list of studies documenting the existence of a government subsidy unique to the largest firms that extends across their balance sheets. While the industry vigorously argues that no subsidy exists, the preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise.2 Thus, while new authorities designed to mitigate this subsidy have been introduced, they have yet to be used or successfully tested. It is worth noting, for example, that under the Bank Holding Company Act, regulatory authorities have long had the authority to force divestiture of non-bank affiliates if they threaten the viability of the related bank. To my knowledge, this authority has never been used.

Therefore, as before the crisis, too big to fail and its subsidy continue to affect firms’ behavior. They enable the largest firms to fund themselves at lower cost than other firms providing a competitive advantage that facilitates the biggest firms’ dominance within the industry and multiplying their impact to the broader economy.

Also, although the US has introduced a supplemental leverage ratio to the capital standards, these largest firms carry significantly more leverage following from the subsidy than the industry more broadly. Using International Financial Reporting Standards, the average leverage ratio of the eight globally systemic US banks is nearly 25 to 1.3 This leverage is comparable to what the largest US firms carried in the years leading up to the crisis in 2008 and, as events demonstrated, it reflects too little capital to absorb significant shocks that might occur within the financial sector.

These leverage ratios stand in contrast to those for the remainder of the US banking industry. For example, the average leverage ratio for each category of banks -- from community, to regional, to super-regional -- is less than 14 to 1. This lower ratio reflects the fact that creditors of these firms are more directly exposed to loss should failure occur and, therefore, they insist on a larger capital cushion.

Thus, in comparing today’s financial system to that of 2008, I worry that the industry is more concentrated, that the system remains vulnerable to shock, and that the economy remains vulnerable to crisis. Even within the confines of Dodd-Frank, the industry’s structure, incentives and balance-sheets are more similar to 2008 than different. And, as always, we can’t anticipate the source of the shock until it strikes.

Rethinking Status Quo Solutions

It has been noted that, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”4 The economy has struggled through this recovery in a post Dodd-Frank environment perhaps because the public realizes that while we have more rules, too little has changed. It is my hope that people remain cautious so that five years from now – ten years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers – we will not be in an all-too-familiar place, facing an all-too-familiar banking crisis.

We need to regain our economic footing by rethinking our solutions. As I have been suggesting since before joining the FDIC, the US requires a monetary policy that better balances short-term and long-term policy goals. We need to rationalize, not consolidate, the structure of the financial industry and narrow the federal safety net to its intended purpose of protecting only the payments and intermediation systems that commercial banks operate.5 At a minimum, simplifying the structure would enhance the FDIC’s ability to implement its new authorities to resolve institutions should they fail. In addition, the US must lead the world in strengthening and simplifying the capital requirements for regulated financial firms, particularly for the largest, most systemically important firms.6 A strong capital base for individual firms and the industry is essential to a strong, market-based financial system.

A decentralized financial structure supported by a strong capital base and market accountability, too long ignored but fundamentally correct, would further change industry incentives and strengthen its performance. Finally, and importantly, these conditions would make the industry more responsive to the market, providing opportunity for success and failure -- both of which are essential elements of capitalism.



The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the FDIC

1 Tangible common equity capital is total equity capital less non-Treasury preferred stock, goodwill and other intangible assets.

2 http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/litreview.pdf
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/special_reports/safety_net/pdf/safety_net_methodology_sources.pdf

3 The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) approach to financial statement reporting is set by the International Accounting Standards Board.  A significant difference between U.S. GAAP and IFRS is IFRS only allows the netting of derivative instruments on the balance sheet when the ability and intent to settle on a net basis is unconditional. http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/board/hoenig/capitalizationratios2q13.pdf

4 The quote is widely attributed Albert Einstein, though scholars have not verified its authenticity. http://www.albert-einstein-quotes.org.za/

5 “Restructuring the Banking System to Improve Safety and Soundness” white paper by Thomas M. Hoenig and Charles S. Morris - http://fdic.gov/about/learn/board/Restructuring-the-Banking-System-05-24-11.pdf
“A Turning Point: Defining the Financial Structure” speech by Thomas M. Hoenig to the Annual Hyman P. Minsky Conference at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. April 17, 2013 - http://fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/spapr1713.html

6 “Basel III Capital: A Well-Intended Illusion” speech by Thomas M. Hoenig to the International Association of Deposit Insurers 2013 Research Conference in Basel, Switzerland. April 9, 2013 - http://fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/spapr0913.html