金錢: 131.86
帖數: 3100
GP: 181
LV: 56
交易所: 40796500.00

U.S. Gears to Impose Stricter Rules on 8 Largest Banks 人氣: 1005 回覆: 1

美國佬玩timing 真係好好,趁退巿前大力去槓桿,個effect 係美資行再收縮業務,細啲balance sheet, 加大美債需求,新興市場資產應被迫再減



JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are among eight U.S. banks facing new domestic rules on capital and debt that would be even stricter than global standards approved yesterday.
Lenders will be forced to maintain a ratio of capital to assets that exceeds the 3 percent floor set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo said yesterday. Another measure would compel banks to hold a minimum amount of equity and long-term debt to help authorities dismantle failing lenders, Tarullo said.
Enlarge image
A window washer cleans off the lettering at Morgan Stanley headquarters in New York. Photographer: Mark Lennihan/AP Photo
July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Fed Governors Daniel Tarullo and Elizabeth Duke, Michael Gibson, director of the Fed's Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, and Ann Lee Hewko, a deputy assistant director, speak at a Fed meeting in Washington about a proposed leverage ratio minimum for banks that would exceed the 3 percent requirement set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (Source: Bloomberg)
July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo said the U.S. is "very close" to proposing a leverage ratio minimum that will exceed the 3 percent requirement set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Tarullo spoke at the Fed's meeting in Washington today on new international capital standards. (This is Tarullo's prepared statement. Source: Bloomberg)
Enlarge image
Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo speaks during a Bloomberg Television interview at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Sponsored Links
Buy a link
The remarks show U.S. regulators plan to ratchet up demands for bigger buffers against losses to prevent a repeat of the 2008 credit crisis, ignoring bankers who say lending and profit will suffer. The measures would come on top of toughened global standards known as Basel III that Fed governors approved unanimously, even as Tarullo said parts remain too weak.
“We’re in the first few chapters of a horror story for the big banks, with the worst to come,” said Coryann Stefansson, a managing director at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. “It’s clear that the U.S. is willing to push for stronger capital.”
People with knowledge of the matter have said U.S. regulators may want to double Basel’s 3 percent capital threshold, known as the leverage ratio. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said a proposal may be published next week.
New Restraint
“If the leverage ratio is raised to six, that would be a major tightening by the U.S. above and beyond the global agreement,” said Stefan Walter, the Basel committee’s secretary general until October 2011 and now a principal at Ernst & Young LLP. “In Basel, the leverage ratio was seen as a backstop, but at such a high level, it can become a new restraint on banks.”
The added measures would affect the eight U.S. institutions already tagged as globally important, according to Tarullo. The Financial Stability Board, which monitors the world’s banking system, has identified those as JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Citigroup Inc. (C), Morgan Stanley (MS), State Street Corp. (STT) and Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
Other changes may include higher capital requirements for banks that rely on short-term market funding, which proved to be unreliable in the financial crisis, and capital surcharges that the Basel panel is preparing to impose on firms whose failure might bring down the entire system, according to Tarullo.
Profit Impact
The U.S., along with 26 other members of the Basel Committee, must enact local regulations to carry out a 2010 revision of how minimum capital levels are set for the world’s banks. The FDIC and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which check banks for safety and soundness, are scheduled to vote on the Basel standards by July 9.
When finalizing the rule, the U.S. eased requirements for some of the smallest firms while tightening for the biggest ones. Bankers have argued that more regulations and higher capital ratios will inhibit lending and erode profit. The American Bankers Association, the biggest lobbying group for the industry, repeated its warnings.
“The real test for Basel III is whether the rule makes it easier or more difficult for banks to serve their customers,” the ABA said in a statement. “If it makes it harder, that’s not what our still-recovering economy needs.”
The leverage ratio proposed by the Basel panel adds a stricter standard for measuring capital. Traditional rules allowed bankers to sort their assets according to risk and set aside less money to cover the ones they judged to be less dangerous.
Complex Formulas
Regulators became skeptical of the complex formulas behind those risk weightings after the financial crisis and instead demanded a minimum amount of capital to back assets regardless of the perceived risk.
Banks will still have to meet the old risk-based standard. The Basel agreement of 2010 raised the risk-based capital minimum to 7 percent for all banks. The largest banks in the world, including the eight in the U.S., face a surcharge that ranges from 1 percent to 2.5 percent.
The measures outlined by Tarullo could be costly, said William Sweet, a former Fed lawyer and a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in Washington. “Any change of the leverage would be so far outside what Basel III proposed that it would be a dramatic impact,” Sweet said, with U.S. banks at a “distinct disadvantage” when competing head-to-head against lenders based in other nations and governed by the weaker global standard.
Narrow Definition
The U.S. rules narrow the definition of what counts as capital, in line with Basel’s revisions after the 2008 crisis, and reclassify derivatives and mortgage-based securities as more risky than in previous versions.
“This framework requires banking organizations to hold more and higher-quality capital, which acts as a financial cushion to absorb losses, while reducing the incentive for firms to take excessive risks,” Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said in prepared remarks. “Banking organizations will be better able to withstand periods of financial stress, thus contributing to the overall health of the U.S. economy.”
Regulators surprised banks and analysts last year by imposing the new Basel framework on most community lenders. Lawmakers and lobbyists said the smallest companies shouldn’t be included because they didn’t cause the 2008 crisis, couldn’t raise capital as easily and might have to reduce lending.
Opting Out
Some of the rules, such as the non-risk-based leverage threshold, apply only to the biggest institutions or a smaller sub-group of the top six.
The final version released yesterday allows almost all but the biggest firms to opt out of requirements that they take capital charges as the market valuation of their trading assets fluctuates. It also simplifies the risk calculation for mortgages, a process that community banks had argued was too cumbersome and expensive.
The original proposal had called for eight categories of risk for home loans and would assign 200 percent risk weights to the worst ones. The final version goes back to two categories and 100 percent risk weighting for the worst.
A 100 percent risk weighting means a $100 loan would be fully taken into consideration. So if the minimum ratio is 7 percent, the bank must hold $7 of equity for the $100 loan. A 200 percent weighting would double that to $14.
Mortgage Relief
That change would help regional banks that hold mortgages on their balance sheet as well as San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. home lender. In turn, those benefits could be more than erased by new measures Tarullo outlined, Guggenheim Partners LLC said in a note to investors.
“We are still reviewing the new regulations, yet are confident that we are very well-positioned from a capital perspective,” said Ancel Martinez, a spokesman for Wells Fargo. Spokesmen for the other banks declined to comment about Tarullo’s remarks.
Banks with less than $15 billion in assets were also allowed to retain some hybrid securities that otherwise would no longer count as capital under Basel III. Hybrid securities are debt instruments that have partial characteristics of equity or convert to stock under certain conditions.
About 90 percent of bank holding companies with less than $10 billion in assets already meet the new minimum capital requirements, the Fed said in a staff memo. The rest would need about $2 billion in added capital to comply. That shortfall was $3.6 billion in June 2012 when the rules were announced.
Basel Timetable
Almost 95 percent of firms with assets of more than $10 billion meet the requirements and the shortfall is $2.5 billion, down from $6 billion last year. The Fed didn’t say which banks fell below the standard. The almost decade-long transition should give banks time to comply, the Fed said.
The Basel framework has a stage-by-stage compliance schedule, with requirements for capital going up every year until full levels are reached. The phase-in begins Jan. 1 for the largest banks that use internal risk models to calculate capital needs while others get an extra year to start.
The Basel rules were created in 2010 by a committee of central bankers and regulators to improve and standardize safety guidelines that govern the world’s lenders. Regulators in member nations have since customized the rules to reflect conditions in their own markets. Only half of the Basel members have completed their local rules so far.
The European Union, which has accused the U.S. of dragging its feet, just completed its internal approval process last week. Banks have eight more years to fully comply.
To contact the reporters on this story: Yalman Onaran in New York at [email protected]; Jesse Hamilton in Washington at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Maura Reynolds at [email protected]; Christine Harper at [email protected]
More News:
U.S. · Funds · Finance · Personal Finance · Financial Advisers · Saving & Investing
金錢: 131.86
帖數: 3100
GP: 181
LV: 56
交易所: 40796500.00
熱烈慶祝 痴峰終於坐監喇~
此廣告由舊會員所買。想在這裡下廣告嗎? 請按我
美國I bank, 真係好人,嗰頭去槓桿,嗰頭嗌老散接你啲野,仲低到500 usd 有交易,真係街外錢大家齊齊搵

Investment Banks Eye 'Hedge Funds for the Masses’

Investment Banks Eye 'Hedge Funds for the Masses’
Text Size

Published: Tuesday, 2 Jul 2013 | 3:14 AM ET
By: Jenny Cosgrave, Staff Writer



Adam Jeffery | CNBC
Several investment banks are said to be eyeing the launch of hedge funds for retail investors with minimum investments as low as $1,000 following the launch of a Goldman Sachs fund in May that raised $58 million in less than two months.

Goldman became the first major investment bank to launch a multi-manager hedge fund for the retail market, and other banks are said to be planning similar offerings, according to Amy Bensted, head of hedge fund research at alternative asset data provider Preqin.

(View More: The 10 Stocks That Hedge Funds Love Most)

Bensted said banks such as Merrill Lynch and UBS are exploring moving into the area, as clients are growing less inclined to rely on wealth managers for alternative investment solutions.

CNBC contacted both UBS and Merrill Lynch; UBS declined to comment, while Merrill Lynch was not immediately available for comment.

"A lot of institutional money is flowing from, say, a Credit Suisse fund to a Bridgewater fund, Bensted said. "There has been a move from relying on wealth managers or investment banks to pure asset management shops – so for investment banks, they need to get these smaller investors in and are trying to get them used to hedge fund investing."

(Read More: Introducing the New Hedge Fund: The Family Office)

"A $1,000 minimum investment means I could invest in one if I wanted, so it's about getting more people in. I think in general, people are looking to diversify, with such low interest rates in the markets at the moment globally, for a lot of people it could be an interesting way to diversify their holdings," she added.

While Goldman launched the first fund-of-funds for retail investors in May, which will not include any Goldman Sachs funds, hedge funds with single name managers and very low minimum investments are more common, with some funds such as the Wada Capital Japan trust and the Venator Investment trust with minimum investments as low as $500 launched pre-2008 according to Preqin data.

Goldman charges a 2 percent management fee, but does not take the 20 percent performance fee usually associated with hedge funds as the fund is classed as a mutual fund. The fund also offers daily liquidity, so investors' money can be pulled out at any time.
"I think the hedge fund industry is definitely moving towards these really big hedge funds, which have massive minimum investments of $100 million, but at the other end of the scale, investment banks are trying to get the everyday investor. Having a smaller minimum size and maybe better protection of assets is a way to do that," Bensted said.

(Read More: Hedge Funds Dump Apple, Jump into Hess, Dell Fights in Q1)

According to Citigroup, global demand for retail-focused liquid alternative investment products will reach $939 billion by 2017 - more than three times the current level.

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) is one alternative investment firm that is planning several strategies to attract high net worth retail investors. Earlier this year it filed to launch two new vehicles, including a retail product from Prisma, its fund-of-funds manager.

Alastair Barrie, global head of hedge funds at Martin Currie said he expects the increasing "democratization" of hedge funds, and that more investors should have simple hedge funds in their portfolios.

(Read More: Hedge Funds Shift to Stocks, Just in Time for Pullback)

"By that I mean long/short credit or long/short equity," he said. "What does that mean for the client? It means they probably sacrifice some upside return, but potentially don't get the same down draft when there is a big market correction."

He added that demand for these types of products had increased, somewhat surprisingly, from investors who were close to retirement.

"When you come up to retirement, you don't want to have too much exposure to the equity markets just in case there is a big correction – that is why you are seeing increasing demand using diversified asset portfolios or multi-manager portfolios so they get less exposure to straight equities," Barrie said.

"As the fear factor of 2008 starts to fade there is an acceptance that not all hedge funds are the same. Some genuinely do hedge, reduce risks – [but] it became an all-encompassing term."

—By CNBC's Jenny Cosgrave: Follow her on Twitter @jenny_cosgrave
Long Term Investment... ~ant2012
Guest (IP: avatar
(提示:如要觀看隱藏內容, 按此回到第一頁)
此版不容許訪客發貼, 請先登入。

Home RealBlog Stock Endless Choice Fancy Buzz Gloomy Sunday ZKIZ Wiki RealWidgets

geo stats
Powered by RealForum
Paged in 16.4ms (Q=5 + R=4) @ 2020-1-30 12:19 AM Asia/Hong_Kong
Archiver | 廣告聯繫: abbychau (at) gmail.com