From Geithner to King re: LIBOR

Some traders disclosed to the Fed
That LIBOR deceit was widespread;
The news reached Tim Geithner,
Who responded by writin' a
Quite well-stated memo, 'tis said.

In verbiage clear and concise,
Mr. Geithner dispensed his advice
To follow the fundin'
Of bankers in London
To find the most accurate price.

But the memo to King, while persuasive,
Is fairly alleged as evasive,
In its glaring exclusion
That traders' collusion
On setting of rates was pervasive.

Simon Johnson writes in his Baseline Scenario blog that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may have missed an opportunity to inform its counterparts at the Bank of England of the LIBOR manipulation occurring back in 2008. Interbank traders active in the LIBOR-setting process had plainly admitted to the New York Fed that they gave self-servingly false indications of the rates at which their banks could fund themselves. Understandably concerned, the FRBNY's then-president Timothy Geithner spoke with the English central bank governor Sir Mervyn King, and followed up with a memo outlining his staff's recommendations for improving the LIBOR process. The memo, a model of brevity and clarity, outlines six proposals to improve the accuracy of LIBOR, which is based on funding rates reported by US and other international banks in the London market. Among the proposals: "Eliminate the incentive to misreport" by randomly selecting quotes from a subset of reporting banks.

What the memo did not mention was that the Fed already had admissions of fraudulent reporting from some of those banks. How might things have turned out differently if it had?

Banking Bair

Sheila Bair, no longer at leisure,
Said: "The banks have collective amnesia,
As they're not really fit
For the capital hit
That would come with the next global seizure."

Former FDIC head Sheila Bair has come out of semi-retirement to head a new watchdog group, the Systemic Risk Council. Backed by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Council will monitor and encourage financial regulatory reform. In an interview with Kai Ryssdal of Marketplace, Ms. Bair voices concern that the major banks have forgotten the lessons of the financial crisis, and spend more time trying to water down reforms than strengthening themselves for the next crash. In a related piece, Marketplace's Heidi Moore explains that the major US banks alone require $500 billion of additional capital to withstand a major shock. In this, America is just the tip of the iceberg, as the greatest global systemic risk lies with banks in Europe and Japan.

Overheard at the IMF Meeting

"I conclude, after carefully thinking,
That the options for action are shrinking;
If we take evr'y pail out
We still cannot bail out
The deadbeats whose dinghies are sinking."

This weekend was the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund member states. No doubt many are asking the urgent question: could the IMF take bold action to save the troubled economies of Europe? Simon Johnson, in his Baseline Scenario blog, puts it in perspective: the IMF's entire lending capacity equals only 15% of the public debt of Italy. Says Johnson: "The world does not really need saving, at least in a short-term macroeconomic sense.  If the problems do escalate, the IMF does not have enough money to make a difference."

What Happens if We Default?

On a US default, we deduct,
If the GOP reps can obstruct,
Our economy's fatally,
Foolishly, finally,
Fittingly, fecklessly f***ed.

Simon Johnson writes in Project Syndicate that some Tea Party Republicans hope that a US default will radically reduce government's role in the economy,

But the consequences of any default would, ironically, actually increase the size of government relative to the US economy – the very outcome that Republican intransigents claim to be trying to avoid.
The reason is simple: a government default would destroy the credit system as we know it.

The entire dollar-based credit system is founded on the assumption that US government debt is riskless; the entire economy is founded on credit; without the one, the other will contract fitfully, fiscally and ferociously.

Hat tip to Tess Vigeland of Marketplace Money.

Too Big to Save?

Those banks that were too big to founder
Have grown bigger without growing sounder;
So, what to do then,
If they founder again,
As sooner or later they're bound ter?  

The top five US banks now comprise 13.3% of the nation's financial firms' assets, as Real Time Economics points out in its Number of the Week. This is up from 11.8% in 2007, when Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs were all considered too big to fail. In a comment echoed by MIT economist Simon Johnson, RTE's Mark Whitehouse wonders if these banks, in comparison with the federal government's strapped resources, are now too big to save.

Financial Crisis Post-Mortem

Economists noted the fact
That the big banks continue intact
By taking on debt,
Which, lest we forget,
Is implicitly government-backed.

At the 2011 American Economic Association annual meeting, leading economists - including MIT's Simon Johnson, co-author of "13 Bankers" - opined that financial reform had not done much to reduce the dangers posed by "too big to fail" banks.  Such banks maximize the amount of their debt financing because, due to the market's inference of a government guarantee, it is unnaturally cheap.  Similarly threatening are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which, Johnson said, "should be euthanized as soon as possible."

One Against the 13 Bankers

Said Johnson, "In my recollection,
Consumer Financial Protection
Was largely conceived,
And should run, I believe,
By Elizabeth Warren's direction."

Thanks to MIT economist Simon Johnson for his clear defense of The Right Appointment at the Right Time.