The Vault

17 03, 2025

FedFin on: Why an SWF Might Solve the Conservatorship Conundrum

Arezou Rafikian-12025-03-17T15:58:03-04:00March 17th, 2025|The Vault|

An intriguing op-ed in today’s Financial Times posits a solution to the GSE-privatization problem: including them in the sovereign wealth fund (SWF) already being established by the White House. Could this work? It just might.

The full report is available to subscription clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here.…

17 03, 2025

Karen Petrou: A New, Unified Theory of Effective Bank Regulation

Shane Smith2025-03-17T09:13:31-04:00March 17th, 2025|The Vault|

There is one perennial, overlooked, and devastating irony in the vast body of bank capital and liquidity regulation: the better a bank’s liquidity score, the less regulatory capital it has. Although liquidity and capital are inexorably linked when it comes to preserving bank solvency, the need to comply with two contradictory standards forces banks to change their business model to meet both ends in the middle at considerable cost to profitability and long-term franchise value. This is of course a major threat to solvency of which bank regulators are either blissfully unaware or, worse, heedless. Federal banking agencies have stoutly refused to undertake the essential cumulative-impact analysis we’ve fruitlessly urged on them most recently in Congressional testimony. A new Federal Reserve Bank of New York study shows not just why they should judge rules by sum-total impact, but also how they could do so and thereby have a much better sense of which banks might actually go broke before they do.

I refer you to the full FRB-NY paper for details. It crafts an economic-capital construct calculated by netting the net present value of financeable assets versus par liabilities as a baseline measure which can then be tested under various stress scenarios that start with illiquidity and end in insolvency and vice versa. This leads to a robust measure of survivability that combines the impact of credit risk, liquidity, and the real-world market conditions current rules ignore. In essence, economic capital is derived from the hard-nosed, real-time factors that wise …

10 03, 2025

Karen Petrou: Will Bessent Do It Better?

Eliza Allen2025-03-10T10:18:10-04:00March 10th, 2025|The Vault|

There are two ways to consolidate federal bank regulation. First, you can change the law and, as detailed in my memo a few weeks back, transform agency responsibilities to reduce duplication and regulatory arbitrage. The other way is for one federal entity to assert all the power it has under law and maybe more simply to take de facto charge of significant Fed, OCC, and FDIC supervisory and regulatory policy. Secretary Bessent has now made it clear that the Trump Administration will open Door Number Two, setting key policy goals and “coordinating” among the agencies. Will Treasury keep banking within essential guardrails? Mr. Bessent might just pull this off, at least for as long as he’s Treasury Secretary in this super-volatile Administration.

Just weeks ago, I would have said a Treasury putsch was impossible because of the Fed’s inviolable status as an independent agency that, even under a more Trump-ready vice chair, would avoid the appearance of taking Treasury’s orders less this subservience spill over to monetary policymaking. Now, though, the President has claimed via executive order that there are no more independent agencies exempt from Executive Branch control. This covers the OCC and FDIC, which were in any case sure to do what was asked of them in this Administration, but it also covers Fed supervisory and regulatory responsibilities. The Fed’s express statutory independence does not cover these activities, making it likely now that the Fed will concede on most sup-and-reg points to defend the fragile barricades surrounding monetary-policy …

3 03, 2025

Karen Petrou: The Casualties of Slash-and-Burn Regulatory Rewrites

Eliza Allen2025-03-03T10:54:41-05:00March 3rd, 2025|The Vault|

There’s no doubt that many U.S. institutions have grown such long teeth over the years that they bit themselves in the foot. As a result, radical reform challenging conventional wisdom is long overdue. But, there are two ways to do this: the break-first/fix-later approach taken by the Trump Administration in biomedical research and other vital arenas; the other is to think first, then act decisively within the boundaries of current law or the better ones you demand. Radical reform to U.S. biomedical research is already leaving near-term treatments and cures on the cutting-room floor. If slash-and-burn transformation is also applied to financial-services supervision and regulation, systemic-risk guardrails could be unintentionally, but dangerously, dismantled.

The risks to biomedical research are not so much in what the Trump Administration has done, but that it’s more often than not done retroactively regardless of contractual commitments for continuing funding authorized under longstanding appropriations and by frenetic, indiscriminate firings of well-performing staff. You simply can’t suddenly stop a clinical trial without endangering patients and putting treatments years behind, if they continue at all. You also can’t stop basic biomedical research all of a sudden without leaving labs with a lot of mice, dogs, and primates to feed and no money for kibble. It also takes years to train good biomedical researchers; suddenly firing thousands of them endangers this pipeline and, with it, treatments and cures.

Biomedical research and financial-system governance have little in common, but leaving financial policy in tatters will also have unintended consequences …

24 02, 2025

Karen Petrou: How the White House Could Have Fun with the Fed

Shane Smith2025-02-24T09:11:47-05:00February 24th, 2025|The Vault|

President Trump has an awesome ability to keep even his closest allies perplexed by nonstop announcements that often break precedent, accepted norms, and even the law. Just as opponents begin to rally against one initiative, the White House launches another, sending dissenters off in a different direction, leaving the actions they initially targeted unchanged or even forgotten. Still, several policy themes are coming through loud and clear through all these different actions that have far-reaching financial-market cumulative impact. One is the sheer volatility all this chaos creates; another to which I turn here is the President’s sure and certain effort to make the Federal Reserve a tool of the executive branch, going beyond setting interest rates to turn it into America’s sovereign wealth fund.

As we noted, The President’s executive-order barrage includes one demanding a U.S. sovereign wealth fund (SWF). The tricky bit here is not the lines that would quickly blur between public and private enterprise, an historic U.S. economic principle that won’t slow Mr. Trump down for a minute. Instead, it’s where the money funding the SWF comes from given the lack of a nationalized commodities enterprise such as Norway’s and the Administration’s hell-bent campaign to reduce the federal deficit. Solution? The Fed.

U.S. law is seemingly an obstacle to deploying the Fed as an SWF since it allows the Fed to hold only direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury and its agencies as well as – a Fed sleight of hand in the 2008 crisis – Fannie …

20 02, 2025

FedFin on: Debanking Prohibition

Arezou Rafikian2025-02-20T10:46:10-05:00February 20th, 2025|The Vault|

In concert with other efforts to prevent debanking, two Republican senators have introduced legislation to bar insured depository institutions from certain government contracts if the IDI or its affiliate refuses to do business with lawful enterprises they dislike on what the bill describes as social-policy grounds. The bill is very brief and thus does not provide an administrative framework for implementation in areas such as determining which entities banks inappropriately dislike and which contracts are to be barred.

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

19 02, 2025

FedFin Assessment: What Happens When OMB Runs Bank Regulation

Arezou Rafikian2025-02-19T15:40:10-05:00February 19th, 2025|The Vault|

In this report, we build on our earlier alert regarding the President’s executive order (EO) bringing federal financial regulation and supervision directly under the Executive Branch. Although some commenters have suggested this will have little material impact given pending Trump nominees to key posts, we expect it will at the least slow and in many cases alter what would be largely technical decisions by moving them into the often-viral political environment in ways far beyond changes now effected through the Congressional Review Act. Further, areas where the banking industry seeks new rules – e.g., a rewrite of current capital standards taking the best of the 2023 proposal, cryptoasset certainty, debanking, NBFI constraints from the SEC/CFTC – could be complicated by White House or OMB demands based on little knowledge of financial markets and bank operations, along with political pressures rarely evident in the insular realm of banking-agency rulemakings….

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

18 02, 2025

Karen Petrou: The Fed’s Sudden GSIB Jihad

Shane Smith2025-02-18T09:06:45-05:00February 18th, 2025|The Vault|

Even as he stoutly assured Congress last week that the Fed is staunchly apolitical, Chair Powell acknowledged several post-inauguration epiphanies. These include sudden recognition of the supplementary leverage ratio’s impact on Treasury-market liquidity and the importance of cost-benefit and cumulative regulatory-impact analyses along with disavowal of all things climate risk. Another Fed U-turn relates to merger policy, but this escaped broad notice. It shouldn’t have – bank-merger policy is due for a major makeover and that matters.

In a detailed FedFin analysis of banking-industry competition last year, we looked at current market realities and years of research showing that the dramatic erosion in U.S. bank charters is not due to voracious big-bank gobbling of small-bank charters. Instead, it’s the result of inexorable technological advances combined with an array of new rules that challenge the ability of all but the very biggest banks to achieve the economies of scale and scope now vital to charter survival. Many new rules, warranted or not, have also had the inexorable effect of enabling regulatory arbitrage, empowering massive nonbank competitors who easily quash vulnerable companies unable to match technological prowess and network effects.

Sudden Fed policy reversals did not escape Republican notice, with Senate Banking Chair Scott commenting acidly about Fed “flip-flops.” But, unless Members of Congress make Jay Powell angry – and that’s hard to do in public – nothing the Fed chair says in public is offhand even if it seems that way at the time. During last week’s hearings, Mr. Powell changed …

13 02, 2025

FedFin on: Debanking Prohibition

Arezou Rafikian-12025-02-14T16:41:33-05:00February 13th, 2025|The Vault|

Reflecting broad political agreement that debanking should be prevented, a senior Senate Republican has introduced legislation that would effectively terminate a bank’s ability to do business upon any finding that it had denied fair access to anyone within its full range of retail and wholesale customers within the geographic areas the bank chooses to serve. The bill’s definition of fair access is expansive, for example permitting pricing differentiation only based on “proportionate” considerations that do not appear to consider factors such as a product’s or customer base’s relative profitability. Banks would likely err on …

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

10 02, 2025

Karen Petrou: Payment-System Politics and the Havoc It Wreaks

Shane Smith2025-02-10T09:16:53-05:00February 10th, 2025|The Vault|

Any bank that granted even just “read-only” access to its payment services with as few controls as the U.S. Treasury would and should be harshly sanctioned by its supervisors. Who steps in to ensure the smooth functioning of the multi-trillion Treasury payment system? Do any of Mr. Musk’s operatives know what would happen if they pulled the wrong plug and disabled critical payments on U.S. debt or to American citizens such as those for Social Security? And, what if they don’t care if they disrupt payments if they believe this suits a political purpose?

When I wrote my memo last week hoping that these fears are alarmist, we didn’t know then what we know now about unlimited payment system access by a key DOGE warrior since named to head the Fiscal Service and the youth, inexperience, and dubious histories of the payment-system teams. Do any of them know that payment-system finality is an essential element of payment-system credibility and financial-system stability or do they view the payment system as a video game with a prize for the team member who finds the target that rings the loudest political bell? Do any of these Trump appointees know that making even a little mistake could be catastrophic in a system handling trillions of dollars in billions of transactions or are they looking for viral moments on encrypted social-media platforms so they become the envy of like-minded young men?

As FedFin noted last week, what Congress and the press took as a pledge …