Category: Financial Institutions

The Larger Debate on Federal Credit Programs

Earlier today I criticized a New York Times proposal regarding law school loans. Whatever you think about the proper cost of legal education, the NYT is off-base, because it ignores the role of private finance in our economy.

Education finance policy is difficult because it raises fundamental issues in political economy and public finance generally. It also only makes sense with some historical context.

Back in the 1970s and ’80s, an anti-tax coalition operated on the presumption that state support for education had to drop. Financialization plugged the resulting hole in funding: responsibility for paying for school shifted from (relatively well-off) taxpayers to students. By the 1990s, private lenders realized that they could make tremendous profits from such loans–particularly if they could privatize profits, while sticking the government with losses. That arrangement became so scandalous by 2010 that it was curtailed as part of PPACA. The federal government directly offers many loans now.

But the private lenders did not simply give up. Current efforts to “reform” federal student loans are part of their much larger effort to shrink federal credit programs. The basic idea is simple: to force the US government to account for its credit programs as if it could and should charge interest rates (and impose terms) prevailing among private lenders.

It’s a strange move, especially since, as Matt Yglesias states, “costs reported in the budget are generally lower than the costs to the most efficient private financial institutions because the government’s costs of funds are in fact lower.” David Kamin has also questioned this accounting tactic. But if it succeeds, there is little rationale for any federal credit program–it will simply duplicate extant private lenders’ work. That redundancy will lead to further privatization of federal credit programs, raising costs to borrowers and diverting more money to the finance sector. It’s not a great outcome for students–but it is a logical outgrowth of reflexive hostility to the type of state intervention that actually could improve students’ finances while maintaining quality.

The Black Box Society: Interviews

My book, The Black Box Society, is finally out! In addition to the interview Lawrence Joseph conducted in the fall, I’ve been fortunate to complete some radio and magazine interviews on the book. They include:

New Books in Law

Stanford Center for Internet & Society: Hearsay Culture

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: The Spark

Texas Public Radio: The Source

WNYC: Brian Lehrer Show.

Fleishman-Hillard’s True.

I hope to be back to posting soon, on some of the constitutional and politico-economic themes in the book.

From Piketty to Law and Political Economy

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century continues to spur debate among economists. It has many lessons for attorneys, as well. But does law have something to offer in return? I make that case in my review of Capital, focusing on Piketty’s call for a renewal of the social science of political economy. My review underscores the complexity of the relationship between law and social science. Legal academics import ideas from other fields, but also return the favor by informing those fields. Ideally, the process is dialectic, with lawyers and social scientists in dialogue.

At the conference Critiquing Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation, I saw that process first hand in May. We at the Association of Professors of Political Economy and the Law (APPEAL) are planning further events and projects to continue that dialogue.

I also saw a renewed synergy between law and social sciences at the Rethinking Economics conference last month. Economists inquired about bankruptcy law to better understand the roots of the financial crisis, and identified the limits that pension law places on certain types of investment strategies.

Some of the organizers of the conference recently took the argument in a new direction, focusing on the interaction between Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and campaign finance reform. “Leveling up” modes of campaign finance reform have often stalled because taxpayers balk at funding political campaigns. Given that private campaign funders’ return on investment has been estimated at 22,000%, that seems an unwise concession to crony capitalism. So how do we get movement on the issue?
Read More


JOBS Act, Sarbanes-Oxley and US Stock Market Competitiveness

Steve Bainbridge posts that we now have evidence that the facilitations that the JOBS Act provided to emerging growth companies for going public are ineffective. Steve also points out that since the early 2000s we have seen the US stock markets appearing less competitive than foreign markets. Let me add that we also have evidence that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) lengthened the time to going public and increased the probability of a private sale instead of an IPO. (SSRN has tons of papers on the mostly negative consequences of SOX but also a couple of papers suggesting indeterminate answers.) This means that SOX moved returns away from entrepreneurs and public investors to private equity funds. Although the costs of compliance have dropped and perhaps we cannot definitively say that SOX was a mistake, we cannot say it was a success either and the JOBS Act did not cure the inefficiencies that SOX produced. So, it is time to accept that the way to restore competitiveness is to repeal the dubious SOX provisions. Read More


Argentina and Sovereign Insolvency

Thanks to Gerard for the nice introduction. Indeed, I am here to rant about bankruptcy, securities, and corporate, mostly. The vineyard lies dormant now (but any offers for it will be considered).

So, how about Argentina and Elliot? We pay our nice subsidy to the IMF out of our taxes and it finances sovereign restructurings by essentially buying the vote of bondholders into accepting restructurings that are good for both the bondholders and the insolvent sovereign (compared to it wallowing in a depression for years). Then, after the sovereign turns around its economy, our own courts let the holdout bondholders collect on the bonds that, if everyone had held out as they did and the sovereign stayed in a depression for decades, would not have had much value.

We could have a sovereign insolvency regime but the banks opposed the IMF charter amendment to that effect and it did not go through. Or our courts could go back to their equity receivership jurisprudence and try to fashion a sovereign insolvency regime.

Instead, our courts give ammunition to the holdouts, making bonds of insolvent sovereigns more attractive gambles, and pushing up the amount that the IMF will have to pay to buy out the bondholders’ vote in the next restructuring.

How would a sovereign insolvency regime work? It would not be pretty but it would be much prettier than this. Think of Detroit. It makes a bankruptcy filing and proposes a plan that keeps taxes rational and the city viable. No lender of last resort needs to get involved. Bondholders cannot extract any favorable bargains. Our tax dollars do not get wasted.

Failed Fiduciaries: Pension Funds’ Alliances with Private Equity Firms

As Yves Smith has reported, “the SEC has now announced that more than 50 percent of private equity firms it has audited have engaged in serious infractions of securities laws.” Smith, along with attorney Timothy Y. Fong, has been trying to shed light on PE arrangements for months, but has often been blocked by the very entities taken advantage of by the PE firms. As Smith concludes:

[I]nvestors have done a poor job of negotiating agreements so that they protect their interests and have done little if any monitoring once they’ve committed to a particular fund. As we’ll chronicle over the next few days, anyone who reads these agreements against the disclosures that investors are now required to make to the SEC and the public in their annual Form ADV can readily find numerous abuses. . . . But rather than live up to their fiduciary duties, pension funds that have invested in private equity funds haven’t merely sat pat as they were fleeced; even worse, they’ve been staunch defenders of the private equity industry’s special pleadings.

The SEC Chair has also harshly criticized the arrangements. States are making token efforts to reform matters after being exposed, but don’t expect much substantive to be done. The key problem is the distinction between those running pension funds, and what Jennifer Taub calls the “ultimate investors“–those whose accounts are being managed. Until their interests are better aligned, expect to see more sweetheart deals via “alternative investments.”

Beyond Too Big to Fail

After documenting extraordinary rent-seeking (and gaining) by financial institutions, John Quiggin comes to the following conclusion:

[A]ny serious attempt to stabilize the macroeconomy and return to sustainable improvements in living standards must involve a drastic reduction in the size and economic weight of the financial sector. Attempts at regulating derivatives markets have proved utterly futile in the face of massive incentives to take profitable risks, backed up by the guarantee of a government bailout.

The only remaining option is to separate these markets entirely from the socially useful parts of the financial system, then let them fail. Publicly guaranteed banks should be banned from engaging in all but the most basic financial transactions, such as issuing loans and bonds and accepting deposits. In particular, banks should be prohibited from doing any business with institutions engaged in speculative finance such as trade in derivatives. Such institutions should be required to raise all their funds directly from investors, on a “buyer beware” basis, and should never be bailed out, directly or indirectly, when they get into trouble.

The theme of separating out the utility-like, payment systems management functions of banks, from speculative finance, is something I’ve been hearing in a good deal of British thought on financial regulation.  I expect American policy makers to catch up soon.





Finance’s Failures: Lack of Accountability

This week I’ll be highlighting some excellent, recent articles on problems in the US financial sector.  First up is Jennifer Taub’s Reforming the Banks for Good.  On the way to introducing six valuable reforms, Taub notes the following:

 In 2013 JPMorgan Chase (the bank that bought WaMu) agreed to pay $13 billion to the U.S. government related in part to the sale of bad mortgages to government-sponsored housing enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The settlement was heralded by the government as the largest ever with a single institution in U.S. history. But the board of directors at JPMorgan Chase awarded CEO Jamie Dimon a 74 percent pay increase (to $20 million) that same year. Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, called this move “as shocking as it is indefensible,” noting, “It’s a real slap in the face to the [Department of Justice] and financial regulators who think that the actions that they’ve taken in the last year have been appropriate to punish and deter JPMorgan Chase.” It is hard not to conclude that those who helped create a global financial calamity have not and will not suffer personal consequences.

I’m looking forward to reading Brandon Garrett’s Too Big to Jail this fall to explore some systemic responses to the problem. If it’s not solved, fines simply become a cost of doing business. And for too big to fail banks, no mere fine can deter bad conduct. If any particular penalty really endangered a bank, it would just be funneled back to the bank in the form of a bailout.

The Logic of Extraction

Despite happy talk from corporate chieftains (and their friends in government), deep flaws in the American economy are becoming harder to ignore. Two recent articles have been particularly insightful.

First, despite America’s self-image as a crucible of cutthroat competition, our top businesses specialize in eliminating rivals. As Lina Khan and Sandeep Vaheesan observe,

Since the early 1980s, executives and financiers have consolidated control over dozens of industries across the U.S. economy. . . . [This strategy] has even become a basic formula for successful investing. Goldman Sachs in February published a research memo advising investors to seek out “oligopolistic market structure[s]” in which “a smaller set of relevant peers faces lower competitive intensity, greater stickiness and pricing power with customers due to reduced choice, scale cost benefits including stronger leverage over suppliers, and higher barriers to new entrants all at once.” Goldman went on to highlight a few markets, including beer, where dramatic consolidation over the past decade has enabled dominant companies to use their market power to extract more from suppliers and consumers — and thereby enrich investors.

Of course, Goldman had its own angle on the beer—a commodities shuffle to make money off the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the US each year.

Khan & Vaheesan are right to focus on finance as the key driver in the transformation. Gautam Mukanda has explored how leaders in the sector have enforced a short-term, extractionist mindset on US industry:

Pressure to reduce assets made Sara Lee, for example, shift from manufacturing clothing and food to brand management. Sara Lee’s CEO explained, “Wall Street can wipe you out. They are the rule-setters…and they have decided to give premiums to companies that harbor the most profits for the least assets.” In the pursuit of higher stock returns, many electronics companies have, like Boeing and Sara Lee, outsourced their manufacturing, even though tightly integrating R&D and manufacturing is crucial to innovation.

Clayton Christensen argues that management’s adoption of Wall Street’s preferred metrics has hindered innovation. Scholars and executives alike have criticized Wall Street not only for promoting short-term thinking but for sacrificing the interests of employees and customers to benefit shareholders and for encouraging dishonesty from executives who feel they’re being asked to meet impossible demands.

Considered in this light, it’s no wonder Wall Street & its enablers are trying so hard to hide the terms of its deals with states. We’ll need to look elsewhere for economic leadership.

Conference: Critiquing Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation

I am looking forward to attending (and briefly speaking) at a conference on May 19-20 in Washington, D.C. on “Critiquing Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation.”

The event will take place at George Washington Law School. Co-sponsors include Center for Law, Economics and Finance (C-LEAF), the Association of Professors of Political Economy and the Law (APPEAL), Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), Better Markets, the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) and SUNY Buffalo Law School.

Confirmed keynote speakers include John C. Coates, (author of “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Case Studies and Implications”) and law and economics professor William K. Black (whose classic book The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One still influences policy debates).

Here is a link for registration, and additional details. I’ve pasted the agenda below.
Read More