Shane Smith

About Shane Smith

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Shane Smith has created 171 blog entries.
6 01, 2025

Karen Petrou: Oval Office Bluster at a Time of Fed Confusion

2025-01-06T09:08:37-05:00January 6th, 2025|The Vault|

There is no doubt after last year’s last-minute debacle that U.S. fiscal policy is in still tinier tatters.  But, unnoticed so far is the still greater danger of confused fiscal policy combined as it now is with feckless monetary policy.  An economy resting on fiscal- and monetary-policy disarray is an economy at grave risk that sure-and-certain volatility will break through fragile guardrails.  Strained financial systems could then quickly compound the inflationary pressures likely from Trump trade and fiscal policy along with an array of supply-chain and employment risks.  And these are just the slow-burning hazards.  What happens if the financial system is shocked?

Although there has long been much about Fed policymaking that strains credulity, global financial markets have looked to the Fed as to a star in the East.  After 2008, markets had so much faith in the Fed that it was rightly dubbed “the only game in town” in a highly-influential 2016 book.  Now, though, investors and traders are increasingly fearful that, while the game based on Fed actions is still being played with its usual ferocity, there’s no longer an umpire or safety net.

Like adolescents suddenly facing the fact that parents are far from infallible, markets have had a rude, hard awakening in 2024’s last quarter.  Much has been written in recent weeks about the Fed’s steadfast assertion that it’s “data-driven” even as its decisions veer wildly from easing to tightening and back again.  That a stalwart Democratic economist recently endorsed longstanding Republican calls for …

16 12, 2024

Karen Petrou: The Likely Banking-Agency Rewrite

2024-12-16T09:09:18-05:00December 16th, 2024|The Vault|

Will the Trump Administration and an agreeable Congress really make sense of U.S. bank regulation? I’m not sure that what they do will indeed make sense, but there’s so little sense in the current system that I’m confident they’ll have no qualms about vaunting the institutional barricades that have thwarted due-process reformers since a Senate Banking chair proposed to create a “Federal Banking Commission” in the early 1980s.  Little in the U.S. regulatory colossus is in as much need of creative disruption as banking; the tricky bit will be to ensure that tearing down the current framework doesn’t leave it in ruins.

One reason for decades of inaction is the federalist structure of U.S. bank regulation, which allows for choice among a federal, state, or hybrid (state member) charter.  Whatever is done to federal bank regulation and federal charters, there is no way Congress will even try to redesign the state-based option.  It might expand preemption, but that’s as far as even this group of radicals will go because Congress will not allow each Member’s state to lose much in the federal reform many of them otherwise want.

Congress will also tread softly on one political demand:  that from small banks for a regulator more likely to listen to their pleas.  Right now, that’s the FDIC, which owes its supervisory role over the decades to small banks despite numerous grievous FDIC mistakes along with the agency’s tunning inability to resolve banks bigger than a bread box.

New leadership may remove …

9 12, 2024

Karen Petrou: Do We Need the Financial Stability Oversight Council?

2024-12-09T09:17:27-05:00December 9th, 2024|The Vault|

On Friday, the Biden Administration’s FSOC proved yet again that it deserved Rohit Chopra’s dismissive description as a “book report club.”  As far as we can tell, all it has done for all of the last four years is issue some nice papers about digital assets and the payment system about which nothing was ever done and put forth dutiful annual reports along with two new systemic-designation standards with which it has since done absolutely nothing.  We’ll take our usual look at this year’s annual report, but it will be even less relevant than usual because FSOC is likely to do at least as little in Trump 2.0 as it did with its own recommendations during Trump 1.0.  Given this sorry record, should the Department of Government Efficiency eviscerate the Council?

Sure, why not if all FSOC plans to do is as meaningless as all is town over the past eight years.  Still, Congress wasn’t wrong when it created a Council designed to force communication across super-siloed regulators and to look hard at nonbanks outside their reach.  Indeed, as nonbanks increasingly dominate core intermediation and infrastructure functions, a forward-looking, effective FSOC would be a vital safeguard against market success derived principally from regulatory arbitrage.

Effective system-wide governance is not impossible.  Late last month, the Bank of England showed what can and should be done to address systemic risk.  Using the Bank’s authority to govern across the financial industry, it released a “System-Wide Exploratory Scenario” (SWES), essentially a financial-system wide stress …

25 11, 2024

Karen Petrou: Why the World Needs a Financial Stability Board That Isn’t This Financial Stability Board

2024-11-25T09:04:12-05:00November 25th, 2024|The Vault|

Donald Trump often upends conventional neoliberal wisdom, but one of the seemingly most frightening things the President-Elect espouses is contempt for the global order embodied in bastions such as the Bretton Woods international financial institutions, NATO, the UN, and the World Trade and Health Organizations.  A less-known archetype of right global-order thinking is the Financial Stability Board.  It has so far been spared by Mr. Trump, likely only because it has yet to come to his attention.  Moving out ahead, two House Republicans vying for HFSC Chair are already insisting that each will, Samson-like, pull down the FSB’s banking, insurance, and securities pillars.  Will the global financial system crumble to the lowest common denominator as FSB advocates proclaim?  I doubt it.  Indeed, shaking global financial standard-setters out of their well-stocked echo chamber could actually do global finance a world of good.

Like all the other global-order monuments, the FSB was founded with the very best of intentions.  The 2008 crisis and warning tremors in the late 1990s proved at grave cost how financial earthquakes know no borders.  What better than a new body of global financial standards akin to those that keep cross-border telecommunications humming to protect global banking, insurance, securities, commodities, and payments?  And thus, the G20 brought forth the FSB in 2009.

The FSB promptly did the best it could as quickly as it could not only to ramp up subgroups such as a renewed Basel Committee, but also to tackle the absence of resolution protocols for the …

18 11, 2024

Karen Petrou: Why Banks Need More Than Just New Capital Rules

2024-11-18T09:27:52-05:00November 18th, 2024|The Vault|

Bankers complain with considerable fervor about a “tsunami of new rules.”  There has certainly been a flood of standards indirectly implemented by supervisors, simply demanded by the CFPB, proposed, and finalized.  It’s thus understandable that bankers think they’re drowning.  But, as forest fires rage in Brooklyn and much of the nation is conserving water, it’s important to recall that too little rain is also dangerous.  Which brings me to the strategic hazard banks run if deregulation, while alleviating a bit of bank burden, leaves untouched all the regulatory asymmetries that make it easy for shadow banks to dominate still more profitable activities once considered core banking services.  If shadow banks offer better products, so be it.  However, much of their market power derives only from adroit regulatory arbitrage.  That’s not just bad for banks; it’s also dangerous to financial consumers, investors, and stability.

Regulators can go only so far in easing banks’ burden because the law requires many of the rules that bind them.  Nonbanks are not governed by much federal law and there are scant state safety-and-soundness standards.  Tech-platform companies are outside the law unless federal regulators use their inter-connection and antitrust powers to rein them in.  That these nonbanks have their eyes on core intermediation and payment services is now indisputable.  That banks will end up as little more than bedraggled “partners” or ancillary-service providers to nonbanks is inevitable unless necessary bank-regulatory reform comes with long-overdue nonbank safety-and-soundness and resolution standards.

Our forecasts of financial policy under President …

15 10, 2024

Karen Petrou: Why Didn’t Supervisors Stop TD Before Trillions Escaped AML Surveillance?

2024-10-15T09:08:17-04:00October 15th, 2024|The Vault|

The enforcement actions last week against TD Bank’s manifold and manifest money-laundering violations bristle with righteous anger.  This is understandable – the bank’s AML lapses are jaw-droppingly dangerous.  But what’s missing from the recounting of TD’s sins is any accountability for why banking-agency supervisors failed to catch violations dating back to 2012 that transgress every compliance, risk-management, and governance norm.  Yes, throw the book at TD, but let’s also call the banking agencies on the carpet for why TD was allowed to grow so big even though it was clearly also so bad.

The enforcement orders from the Fed and OCC are replete with new mandates making it clear that neither agency trusts TD here or back home in Canada to do anything right re AML without two guns at its respective heads.  It falls to FinCEN and the Department of Justice to provide the recounting of what was actually going wrong at TD and how supervisors should have caught enough of them to stop at least some of the trillions of dollars of payments that went without AML scrutiny and enabled billions, if not more, of human and drug trafficking, organized crime, and so much else that victimized all too many people and nations.

Time, not to mention stomach, does not permit listing all of TD’s glaring AML violations starting in 2012 that went uncorrected and indeed materially worsened after a 2013 FinCEN warning.  But even a few examples tell a dismal tale.

For one, TD’s AML compliance team …

19 08, 2024

Karen Petrou: What the Fed Must Do to Make Monetary Policy Work

2024-08-19T09:22:53-04:00August 19th, 2024|The Vault|

Later this week, monetary-policy disciples – at least those who agree with the Fed – will gather around the campfire atop Jackson Hole to ponder the question set before them:  whether monetary-policy transmission has been effective and, since it’s awesomely obvious it hasn’t, what might be done about that.  The plan is clearly to float trial balloons in the clear mountain air to see if the Fed’s thinking about the new plan slated for 2025 is any better than that which lay behind its disastrous 2019 monetary-policy rewrite.  Those allowed into these August precincts will have much of value to say this time around much as they sought to do the last time the Fed asked for all their views.  Odds are, though, that Jackson Hole will not consider three non-econometric phenomena that lie behind recent policy misfires:  economic inequality, NBFI migration, and the strong counter-cyclical impact of Fed supervisory policy.

Why do these matter so much?

First to economic inequality.  The last time the Fed rewrote its monetary-policy model, it deigned to consider economic inequality, but promptly dismissed any reasons to worry.  There were, though, lots of them.

The 2019 inequality exercise suffered from the same problem as most Fed models:  reliance on representative-agent, not heterogeneous data showing distributional disparities.  This approach thus reaffirmed blithe convictions that anything that keeps employment high and inflation in check is good for lower-wealth and -income households because it’s good for everyone else.  See my book for why that’s grievously wrong and recent …

5 08, 2024

Karen Petrou: How to Craft Federal Preemption Policy

2024-08-05T09:12:59-04:00August 5th, 2024|The Vault|

In a recent interview, Zach Warmbrodt of Politico asked me the best big-picture question when it comes to federal preemption:  are banks now so petrified of state anti-ESG mandates that a federal law laying out with whom banks may do business is desirable?  Banks don’t want anyone telling them how to run their businesses, but workable federal rules are, so the thinking goes, better than high-risk state standards such as Florida’s new requirements.  Fears are heightened by the OCC’s hesitancy when it comes to preempting Florida, but the agency is now contending with new restrictions thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings and federal preemption still wouldn’t solve the state-bank predicament.  A federal bill might clear these legal issues away, but a sound bill would still have to reckon with complex policy decisions no prior effort to draft preemption bills has conquered.

Indeed, legislative and regulatory efforts to date have been far more ideological than operational.  The ESG battles first broke into open warfare during the Obama Administration when the banking agencies issued warnings about lending to payday companies, firearms-related businesses, and a couple of other targets.  This campaign came to be known as Operation Chokepoint and, even though all of the agencies quickly backed away, it lives on – see Donald Trump’s promise to end “chokepoint 2.0.”

Things heated up again late in the last decade after BlackRock issued a pro-climate edict when it came to casting its proxies and a few big banks curtailed lending to firearms manufacturers and …

29 07, 2024

Karen Petrou: How Big Banks Play Politics for Keeps

2024-07-29T09:22:36-04:00July 29th, 2024|The Vault|

A lot of questions I’ve gotten of late about the presidential election are premised on a false assumption:  financial firms are Republican and the shift at the top of the Democratic ticket and better electoral odds has thus sent a shiver down many well-tailored spines.  But, major financial companies are for the most part brutally pragmatic about pretty much everything and this applies with particular force when it comes to playing politics in a tightly-fought election.  This year’s presidential politics are more than lively, but it’s still absolutely no different when it comes to big financial companies and the sides they take. Here’s why.

First, let me make clear which big financial companies I’m talking about.  Hedge funds and some private-equity companies are branded as much by their leaders as by what they actually return to investors.  The higher the profile of the manager, the bigger the impact they imply they make on Wall Street and the bigger the implied impact they make on national policies, the bigger a role some investors think these leaders play on the Street.  This is an image-dependent financial-market and political feedback loop, and it often works astonishingly well.  Playing big in politics or, at least, giving more or less big in highly-publicized ways burnishes a “big foot” image and, even when some investors disagree, they often stay put – see Bill Ackman.

Big financial companies answerable to powerful regulators and diverse shareholders cannot afford big political profiles on candidates or hot-button issues.  When CEOs …

Go to Top