BREAK ‘EM UP Reason #3: The U.S. Bankruptcy Code Was Changed to Favor Derivatives Over Loans
A law passed during the height of the bubble in 2005 altered the treatment of derivatives in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to greatly favor derivatives counterparties over other creditors. The law’s title was, ironically, “The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Act of 2005”. Bankruptcy law had been designed to rehabilitate debtors while protecting creditors. The…
BREAK ‘EM UP Reason #2: Dodd-Frank’s Resolution Authority is Too Little Too Late
After passing Dodd-Frank, Congressional leaders claimed both “no more bailouts” and that Dodd-Frank’s “resolution authority” was a primary tool in solving “too big to fail”. These two claims are polar opposites. The former states there will be no further government bailouts of big banks, and the latter involves strengthening the government’s ability to do just…
BREAK ‘EM UP Reason #1: Dodd-Frank Suffocates Both Commercial and Investment Banking
Congress may have removed Glass-Steagall barriers for all engaged in banking, but it sure didn’t create an even playing field. In fact, legislation in 1999 and 2008 suffocated two key financial sectors: investment banking and commercial banking. Comparing two giants from each sector — JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs — shows how. Humans set the…
Derivatives and Too-Big-To-Fail Banks: Creating Systemic Risk
This speech was delivered to the New York Society of Security Analysts on December 3, 2104, as part of a conference on systemic risk. I’ve tried to insert the slides with the reader in mind. I was at the time chair of NYSSA’s Market Integrity Committee’s subcommittee on systemic risk, an extremely awkward role. 70%…