Tag Archives: Dodd Frank

A Proposed Rule That Could Cause Another Mortgage Crisis

By Richard Finger, Contributor

What do the Federal Reserve (FED), the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Federal Housing Finance Agency have in common? Each one of these bureaucratic quagmires is in the latter stages of offering input to “tweak” what the final draft of bank mortgage lending rules will look like under implementation of the mostly horrific Dodd Frank laws. Just when it …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Market Minute: Merck, Pfizer Beat Earnings Forecasts; Hospital Giants Merge

By DailyFinance Staff

merck earnings pharmaceutical drug companies stocks investing wall street

Filed under: , , , ,

Drug giants Pfizer and Merck grab the earnings spotlight. Those stocks and more are what’s in business news Tuesday.

The Dow industrials (^DJI) fell 36 points Monday, the S&P 500 (^GPSC) lost 6 and the Nasdaq (^IXIC) fell 14.

Pfizer’s (PFE) operating profit and revenue edged lower, but still beat expectations. The company has been coping for several years with the loss of patent rights on the top-selling cholesterol drug Lipitor, and sales of Lipitor tumbled 55 percent in the latest period. Pfizer also says it will reorganize, a move some analysts say could lead to another spinoff.

Matt Rourke/AP

Rival drug-maker Merck (MRK) reports net edged past Wall Street expectations, but revenue was a bit light. Sales of several key drugs fell as it too struggles with the expiration of patents.

After the closing bell we’ll hear from biotech leader Amgen (AMGN).

Community Health Systems (CYH) has agreed to buy Health Management Associates (HMA) for $3.9 billion. Both companies operate for-profit hospitals, mostly in smaller cities and rural areas.

Herbalife’s (HLF) net easily beat expectations. The nutrition supplement company has been at the center of a high-profile battle between some big-time investors during the past year, with one hedge fund manager claiming the company is run like a Ponzi scheme, and he’s been betting against its stock. So far, he’s lost more than $200 million on that bet. On the other hand, Carl Icahn has made a cool quarter of a billion by backing the company.

AIG (AIG) is getting out of the retail banking business. The company says it will return deposits because of limits placed on insurance companies under the Dodd-Frank law. Allstate Group (ALL), MetLife (MET) and Hartford Financial Services (HIG) have already backed away from retail banking.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) reportedly has agreed to pay $400 million to $500 million to settle federal charges that it manipulated the power markets in California and other states in 2010 and 2011.

On the economic front, the Federal Reserve begins a two-day policy meeting. Everyone will be looking for clues about when and how it will taper down on its massive bond-buying program.

Produced by Drew Trachtenberg.


Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Does Dodd Frank Work? No Would Have To Be My Answer

By Tim Worstall, Contributor Over at Wonkblog they ask whether Dodd Frank has worked or is working in its reform of the financial system. Looking at the one part of it that I actually know something about I would have to say that no, it isn’t. It’s a ghastly and horribly wasteful system of doing nothing very much. …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Treasury Secretary Talks Too Big To Fail, Fannie And Freddie

By Steve Schaefer, Forbes Staff

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation is well on its way to ending the problem of “too big to fail” financial institutions, as long as the elements of the program are successfully implemented. …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Who's for Too Big To Fail Reform Now?

By Ted Kaufman, Contributor          In 2010, the Brown-Kaufman amendment to Dodd-Frank, which would have imposed asset and liability limits on banks, was decisively defeated by a 61-33 vote in the Senate. I was frustrated, but not surprised. Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Obama administration opposed it. Only three Republicans voted for it. It was clear that too many Senators had bought the pitch that the banks had been chastened by their “near death experience,” and that new powers given regulators in Dodd-Frank would solve the TBTF problem.        Two years later, “chastened” is not an adjective I would use to describe our megabanks. They have spent millions in lobbying dollars to gut already watered down Dodd-Frank provisions. And the biggest banks have gotten bigger. In 1995, our six largest banks had total assets that added up to 18% of GDP. Today they are 63% of GDP.        Does anyone doubt that if any of them got into trouble the government would again have to come to their rescue? Certainly the worldwide bond markets are convinced it would happen. That’s why our big banks borrow money on the open market at a rate that is 0.8 percent lower than the rate paid by smaller banks. In the case of JPMorgan Chase, that amounts to a $14 billion a year government subsidy.        If you believe, as I do, in free, competitive markets, that TBTF rate advantage is repugnant. So were the LIBOR and London Whale scandals. So was the admission by the Attorney General of the United States that megabank executives were effectively too big to jail. Events since the defeat of Brown-Kaufman have made it increasingly obvious to more and more people that we still have a critical TBTF problem.        I believed, then and now, that banks that are too big to fail and demonstrably too big to manage are too big to exist. The soon-to-be-introduced Senate bill co-sponsored by Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and David Vitter (R-LA) doesn’t explicitly break up TBTF banks, but it is a major step in the right direction. Requiring banks to maintain a ratio of 10 percent of equity capital to total assets would make them less likely to need a government bailout in the next financial crisis. Because the bill would also impose additional capital requirements of up to 15 percent on banks with assets of more than $400 billion, it is likely its passage would encourage the megabanks to restructure.          Does it have any chance of becoming law? Senator Brown has picked up a lot of allies in the past two years, including his conservative Republican co-sponsor. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has pledged to “end the phenomenon of ‘too big to fail’ and reinstate market discipline.” George Will recently wrote a column supporting Senator Brown’s efforts. Peggy Noonan believes that “megabanks have too much power in Washington” and “too big to fail is too big to continue.” Sandy Weill, the creator of the Citibank behemoth

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedkaufman/2013/04/18/whos-for-too-big-to-fail-reform-now/

Wall Street CEOs: "We're Big Because We're Good"

By David Hanson and Matt Koppenheffer, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

With Congress attempting to pass new legislation further limiting the big banks that are considered “too big to fail,” several big bank CEOs have spoken out in protest. In this video, Motley Fool financial analysts David Hanson and Matt Koppenheffer discuss the conflict, and whether or not more legislation is required, even before we have seen the full impact of the new Dodd-Frank laws. 

Bank of America‘s stock doubled in 2012. Is there more yet to come? With significant challenges still ahead, it’s critical to have a solid understanding of this megabank before adding it to your portfolio. In The Motley Fool‘s premium research report on B of A, analysts Anand Chokkavelu, CFA, and Matt Koppenheffer, Financials bureau chief, lift the veil on the bank’s operations, including detailing three reasons to buy and three reasons to sell. Click here now to claim your copy.

var FoolAnalyticsData = FoolAnalyticsData || []; FoolAnalyticsData.push({ eventType: “TickerReportPitch”, contentByline: “David Hanson and Matt Koppenheffer“, contentId: “cms.32288”, contentTickers: “NYSE:BAC, NYSE:JPM, NYSE:WFC”, contentTitle: “Wall Street CEOs: “We’re Big Because We’re Good””, hasVideo: “True”, pitchId: “29”, pitchTickers: “NYSE:BAC”,

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/wall-street-ceos-were-big-because-were-good/

The Moniker MetLife Just Can't Seem to Shake

By Amanda Alix, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

When megainsurance company MetLife finally closed the sale of its retail banking operations to General Electric‘s GE Capital this past January, enabling it to deregister as a bank, it likely heaved a figurative sigh of relief. The insurer had jumped through many regulatory hoops in order to get this deal done and free itself of tighter controls being levied on any entity that includes a banking platform.

But MetLife knew it wasn’t out of the woods yet and would soon face another scuffle with regulators, this time concerning its status as a “systemically important financial institution.”

MetLife chief takes his case to the public
The potential designation as a SIFI is the reason for an ongoing battle between MetLife and federal regulators, who are also looking at fellow big insurance companies AIG and Prudential  — as well as GE Capital — with a newly discerning eye under Dodd-Frank. The freshly created Financial Stability Oversight Council has been charged with rooting out companies that might cause economic chaos if they fail, and all three insurers were notified last fall that they had entered the third stage of scrutiny in this process.

MetLife’s CEO has been arguing against his company being folded into this category for at least a year, and likely hoped that the insurer’s de-banking would help sway regulatory minds. But MetLife is still on the roster, and CEO Steven Kandarian is on a mission to prove to one and all that insurers are not the threat to the overall economy that the government alleges.

Kandarian spoke at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Capital Markets Summit in Washington, DC yesterday, noting that the insurance industry was not a major player in the financial crisis. What about AIG, you ask? According to Kandarian, AIG‘s life insurance units were “victims” of the insurer’s larger financial problems, though he did acknowledge that it was that company’s tribulations that prompted this review of the industry.

Would consumers suffer under MetLife SIFI status?
Certainly, AIG and Prudential must be grateful for Kandarian’s boosting of their cases, but the MetLife CEO went even further, suggesting that additional regulation would be a bad thing for consumers. A case in point is Kandarian’s assertion that legislating higher capital stores might preclude the selling of variable annuities, products that are immensely popular, but also involve the need for additional capital to be held against them.

As the FOMC moves on with its consideration of these companies’ financial riskiness, it will be interesting to see whether the investigating body makes any response to Kandarian’s allegations, thereby giving the public a clearer idea of exactly what the council’s deliberations are based upon, and how the outcome will affect both consumers and investors. Until then, it appears, Kandarian will soldier on.

At the end of last year, AIG was the favorite stock among hedge fund managers. Have they identified the next big multi-bagger, or are the risks facing the

From: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/11/the-moniker-metlife-just-cant-seem-to-shake/

Know Your Financial Position On-Demand with a Single Version of the Truth

By Derek Klobucher, AdVoice

This is a time of great upheaval on Wall Street. Regulation is “the biggest factor shaping the future of the financial industry,” Financial News noted Tuesday. Dodd-Frank and Basel III will have firms on both sides of the Atlantic seeking more data granularity faster than ever. …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Radian Announces Settlement Agreement with CFPB Related to Legacy Captive Reinsurance Arrangements

By Business Wirevia The Motley Fool

Filed under:

Radian Announces Settlement Agreement with CFPB Related to Legacy Captive Reinsurance Arrangements

Settlement ends five-year federal investigation

PHILADELPHIA–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Radian Guaranty Inc., the mortgage insurance subsidiary of Radian Group Inc. (NYS: RDN) , today announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to resolve a previously disclosed federal investigation of the company’s participation in captive reinsurance arrangements. As part of this settlement, which was filed earlier today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Radian agreed not to enter into new captive reinsurance arrangements for a period of ten years and to pay a civil penalty of $3.75 million.

Radian has not entered into any new captive reinsurance arrangements since 2007. In the past, Radian and other private mortgage insurers entered into captive arrangements pursuant to which affiliates of mortgage lenders reinsured a portion of the risk originated by the lenders (and insured by us) in return for a portion of the mortgage insurance premiums that would have been paid to us. Radian relied on long-standing, written guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in structuring these captive reinsurance agreements and on analyses and opinions of reputable actuarial firms that the terms of Radian’s reinsurance agreements met HUD‘s standards. During the high-claim years that followed the most recent economic downturn, captive arrangements have proven to represent a critical component of the Company’s loss mitigation strategy, effectively serving as designed to protect our capital position during a period of stressed losses. As of December 31, 2012, we had received total cash reinsurance recoveries from these captive reinsurance arrangements of approximately $750 million.

Notwithstanding these facts, since 2008, HUD has been pursuing an investigation into the captive reinsurance arrangements of private mortgage insurers, including Radian, to determine whether these arrangements constituted an unlawful payment under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). This investigation was transferred to the CFPB in 2011 by the enactment of the Dodd-Frank legislation. The settlement agreement announced today, which remains subject to Court approval, will conclude the CFPB‘s investigation with respect to Radian without the CFPB making any findings of wrongdoing in its investigation or in the settlement.

“We are pleased to put this behind us,” stated Teresa Bryce Bazemore, president of Radian Guaranty. “While we believe our captive arrangements complied with RESPA and caused no harm to consumers, this settlement was an opportunity to eliminate distractions at an acceptable cost so that we can continue our primary focus of writing new, profitable mortgage insurance and helping …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

15 Reasons to Invest in Bank Stocks Right Now

By John Grgurich, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

When I began investing, bank stocks piqued my curiosity, but they definitely seemed too exotic and too arcane. So, for a long time, I stuck more with consumer-goods type companies, like Starbucks, Whole Foods, and Chipotle.

I’m still in those companies, and they’re performing as well as ever, but I’ve also made the leap into bank stocks, and my portfolio is all the better for it. Banks have actually become some of my best performers.

So as a salute to investable banks, and maybe with the hope of turning others on to the good investment direction I’ve found, here are 15 rapid-fire, easy-to-digest reasons to get some bank stocks into your portfolio right now (in no particular order).

1. Valuations on many banks are very low: The price-to-book ratio for Bank of America is an absurdly low 0.63. Citigroup‘s P/B is only slightly higher: 0.75.

2. “Too big to fail” still lives: Why is this a good reason to buy into a bank? The implicit guarantee of TBTF means that the federal government simply cannot let certain banks fail, so your investment is much safer than it would otherwise be.

For instance, no administration will ever be able to let JPMorgan Chase — the nation’s biggest bank — fail, no matter what crazy thing it might do to get itself into trouble.

3. Balance sheets are cleaner than ever: The housing boom and subsequent crash destroyed the balance sheets of many big banks, like Citi’s and B of A’s, but four-plus years on the banks have made great progress in dealing with their toxic mortgage debt.

4. The housing market is starting to recover: Banks can still make a lot of money the old-fashioned way: lending money and charging interest, and America remains at heart a home-ownership society, even after the most recent boom and bust.

5. The financials sector has serious momentum: In 2012, the financials sector was the best performing sector of the S&P 500. Investors are starting to realize what they’ve been missing, and are therefore driving up share prices.

6. Rising profits: In the fourth quarter, Goldman Sachs reported net-income growth of 185.5%. Wells Fargo reported net-income growth of 23.9%. Those are big numbers.

7. Great stress-test results: For 2013, 17 of the 18 financial institutions the Federal Reserve ran through its simulated, severe economic downturn passed, demonstrating once again how far banks have come since the crash.

8. Dodd-Frank is in effect: The 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is some of the most far-reaching and comprehensive bank-reform legislation passed since the Great Depression. Well-regulated banks make for safe, stable banks, and therefore better investments.

9. Banks are still viewed with suspicion post-crash: This despite the fact the banks are stronger than ever, which is all the more reason to get in now. And banks are only getting stronger and will increasingly be seen as a profitable way to invest.

10. Many banks already pay solid dividends: Wells Fargo pays …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

BofA Merrill Launches Dodd-Frank Payments Solutions for Financial Institution Clients

By Business Wirevia The Motley Fool

Filed under:

BofA Merrill Launches Dodd-Frank Payments Solutions for Financial Institution Clients

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Bank of America Merrill Lynch, a leader in global payments, today announced the formal launch of a set of solutions for financial institution clients to address new requirements for conducting cross-border payments as outlined by the Dodd-Frank Remittance Regulation 1073 (DF-1073). The solutions, which were initially developed last year, have been enhanced over the last six months with customizable features and will be updated whenthe Final Rule is published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“Bank of America Merrill Lynch is proud to be at the forefront of developing DF-1073 solutions that will help our clients not only evolve with the marketplace and expand their global payment business, but importantly serve their own retail customers as comprehensively and seamlessly as possible,” said Paul Simpson, head of Global Transaction Services (GTS).

“The initiative combines the considerable expertise – including systems and technology – of the Consumer Bank, with that of our wholesale business, which has a long history of operating in overseas markets and delivering payments around the world,” Simpson added.

Bank of America’s Consumer Bank is one of the largest in the country, serving 53 million individuals and small businesses across the United States. Through close collaboration with the Consumer Bank, Bank of America Merrill Lynch created optimal solutions for DF-1073 that leverage the company’s knowledge of best practices in retail banking along with the wholesale bank’s expertise in cross-border payments and foreign bank payment practices.

The lead products addressing DF-1073 requirements are FXtransact White Label and Bank of America Merrill Lynch Information Exchange for Payments. These solutions provide clients comprehensive access to fee, tax, availability date information, and disclosure capabilities. The solutions also help clients reduce costs by improving straight-through processing and by removing manual processes.

As one of the first banks in 2012 to develop a Dodd-Frank offering, the company has on-boarded a number of financial institutions – from large national banks to small community banks. “We are working with several clients of various sizes and degrees of complexity to solve for the new requirements of Dodd-Frank 1073,” said Greg Murray, head of U.S. Dollar Wire and Clearing Products in GTS. “By adopting our solutions, our clients have the ability to make payments within the new regulatory framework in more than 140 currencies, including the U.S. dollar, across 200 countries and territories.”

Bank of America
Bank of America is one of the world’s largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Banks Still Too-Big-To-Fail: Six Things The Fed Must Do

By Steve Denning, Contributor

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein At a news conference last Wednesday, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, conceded that the problem of too-big-to-fail is “still here”.  If new rules and international cooperation did not solve it, he said, “additional steps” will be needed. Chairman Bernanke didn’t say what “additional steps” he has in mind. Since neither Dodd-Frank nor conclaves of central bankers are getting the job done, let’s give the chairman some help, by pointing out six things the Fed must do. Abandon nostalgia for a world that no longer exists Let’s start with some popular non-starters. Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, and a Professor of Entrepreneurship at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management, writes in the New York Times writes that  “the clearest possible statement of how to think about the modern financial system – and make it less risky” lies in a speech by Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, entitled “Ending Too Big To Fail.” …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

J.P. Morgan Did Not Learn Any Lessons From 2008

By Robert Lenzner, Forbes Staff It thought “Fortress Capital” meant it was top of the mark on Wall Street— the ticket to expanding in mortgages and investment banking while Citigroup and BankAmerica and Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were bleeding and either insolvent or close to it. Maybe, that’s the reason JPM learned no humility from the near collapse of finance in America. Maybe, that’s why its senior management did not tremble before the regulators– but scoffed at them and fought them with every lobbyist and influence it could muster in the corridors of Washington. Watching Citigroup shares collapse to 97 cents a share had to be a matter of the most enjoyable schadenfreude. Only JPM had the “Fortress Capital” to grow while others suffered. Maybe the House of Morgan understood that Washington did not care to have the whip hand over Wall Street. That there would be no limit on leverage in the Dodd-Frank bill. That no new fraud charges could be brought after 2013– when the 5 year statute of limitations ran out. That the Attorney General would never bring a criminal case against a financial behemoth with the “clout” to inhibit any sort of prosecution. That you could get away with settling SEC actions for a fraction of the dollar harm done without admitting any sort of guilt. So, maybe I shouldn’t be too shocked about the revelations brought out in the Senate hearings last week by Sen. Levin, who, at 78, showed the fine hand of a prosecuting attorney handing the media a ready-made piece of investigative journalism. Levin investigated and we wrote it. Still, that 5 years after the meltdown almost wrecked our financial system– to learn that there were deficiencies in the risk operations, that there was misleading of shareholders, high-handed behavior toward the regulators– is to learn that Morgan did not learn from the carelessness that brought its competitors to their knees. That arrogance squashed humility. That huge positions in illiquid derivatives contracts called credit default swaps– the device that required AIG to be given a $185 billion bailout– were once again the cause for despair and a loss of $6.2 billion. Finance played in the big leagues is a dangerous game, and stirs the cops to focus their scrutiny on the games people play- in a business that’s far too serious for games. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest