investment banking

America Will Fail Without Reinacting Glass-Steagall

For 66 years the Glass-Steagall act reduced the risks in the banking system. Eight years after the act was repealed, the banking system blew up threatening the international economy. US taxpayers were forced to come up with $750 billion dollars, a sum much larger than the Pentagon’s budget, in order to bail out the banks. This huge sum was insufficient to do the job. The Federal Reserve had to step in and expand its balance sheet by $4 trillion in order to protect the solvency of banks declared “too big to fail.”

Déjà vu Dot Con

pets.con sock puppetThere is much talk, much too late of course, about the JOBS act. We warned about this inappropriately titled bill earlier, but as usual, when corporate lobbyists want, corporate lobbyists will get in Congress, no problem. The bill passed and was signed into law, despite having almost nothing to do with real jobs. Dealbook overviews what Wall Street is discovering after the Jumpstart Our Business Startups bill was passed, oops.

Provisions tucked into the so-called JOBS Act, or the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, will roll back some major securities regulations and parts of a landmark legal settlement struck almost a decade ago. That 2003 settlement built a Chinese wall between Wall Street research analysts and investment bankers, an effort to prevent analysts from improperly promoting stocks to help their firms drum up business from corporate clients.

Now many are pouring over the nitty gritty to see what this bill really does. It ain't lookin' too pretty. While being billed as something to give start up companies more sources of funding and flexibility, instead the bill appears to be a re-awakening of the great Dot Con IPO ripoff circle jerk that was going on from 1994-2001.

TBTF's Double Dip Dessert

doubledipWe all know Too Big To Fail Banks became even bigger from the financial crisis. We also know previous mergers and acquisitions along with financial deregulation allow banks to own, invest and advise, often on the same transactions or deals. We also know time and time again, this has led to strong conflicts of interest and disaster for shareholders, taxpayers and customers.

The latest is an acquisition deal of El-Paso, a natural gas pipeline operator, by Kinder Morgan, a competitor. Seems Goldman Sachs made off with a $25 million fee for advising El-Paso, all the while having a 19%, $4 billion dollar stake in Kinder Morgan, plus a couple of seats on the Kinder Morgan board to boot.

There is a clear conflict of interest on the El Paso-Kinder Morgan deal. The stink is so bad, Goldman Sachs even brought the wrath of Delaware Chancellor Leo Strine who called the deal tainted with disloyalty. Of course the acquisition of El Paso by Kinder Morgan goes through anyway, in spite of the court admonishment.

Goldman now a "regular"Bank

So is this really a ticket for them to do business as usual?  I'm reading on the Wall Street Journal this morning that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will be converted into regular banking holding companies.  So now they are to be like Citibank and Wachovia and Washington Mutual?

For sure, this will pair them down a lot.  The days of 40-1 leverage are over for them.  The boys and girls at the trading desks at Goldman might be hitting that aged whiskey a little more tonight.  No more being capitalist cowboys for them.