Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

Mr. President, Are SIVs Considered Prop Trading?

Posted by Larry Doyle on January 22, 2010 8:09 AM |

Is President Obama’s proposal to rein in risk on Wall Street genuine or merely another Washington political ploy to curry favor with an enraged American electorate?

As with any proposal, the devil is always in the details. Initial pushback from Wall Street is strong but also informative. What is Wall Street highlighting? The large Wall Street banks are promoting the fact that proprietary trading operations do not encompass a large percentage of their overall business. In fact, JP Morgan already shut down an internal proprietary trading business in 2009.

I believe Wall Street will paint Obama’s proposal as an overreaching and aggressive intrusion into its business and free enterprise. What are we to make of all this? What exactly is Obama proposing? I’m not sure even he would know. The fact is, Obama’s proposal to curtail proprietary trading resides in defining exactly what proprietary trading encompasses.

At first blush, I witness the use of the following terms:

1. internal hedge funds

2. private equity operations

3. principal trading

If those three activities are broadly utilized to define proprietary trading, then we might as well shut Goldman Sachs down right now. That is obviously not going to happen.

I do think there are real merits to curtailing risk within these bank business units. That said, were these aforementioned business units the core of the risk on Wall Street that ultimately crushed Main Street? No, they were not.

Wall Street’s risk that crushed Main Street was centered in the structured investment vehicles (SIVs) housed off-balance sheet. Well, then America should certainly expect that these SIVs will be shut down or immediately brought onto the balance sheet and capitalized appropriately, correct? Not so fast.

The Wall Street lobby has been hard at work fighting the SIV battle and has won the initial fight.  How so? Regular Sense on Cents readers may recall that I addressed the SIV battle in writing, “12th Street Capital Reviews FASB 166 and 167 and Tells Us Why Wall Street Will Need More Capital”:

In brief, FASB 166 and 167 will require hundreds of billions in assets to be moved from off-balance sheet vehicles onto the balance sheets of the financial institutions. As those assets, which are embedded in an array of securitization transactions, come on balance sheet, the banks and non-banks alike will have to raise more capital to support the growth in their balance sheets. Best guesstimate is that the institutions will need to raise capital in the tens of billions.

Are the financial institutions taking this rule change sitting down? No, but the FASB’s comment period is over and the implementation of FASB 166 and 167 is upon us as mentioned previously.

Is this accounting rule the reason why certain institutions are hoarding cash? Likely. That said, rest assured the financial lobby is fighting to have the FASB forestall and actually fully reconsider the implementation of 166 and 167.

The Wall Street lobby won a stay of execution on this front. I highlighted as much in early December in writing, “UPDATE: FASB 166 and 167.”

As I conclude my writing this morning and monitor Bloomberg News, Chris Whalen (one of if not the most highly regarded bank analysts on Wall Street) of Institutional Risk Analytics is also pointing to the need to focus on the following:

1. SIVs

2. Full transparency within the derivatives space.

3. SEC registration of all structured securitizations.

Whalen handicaps the implementation of Obama’s proposal (known as the Volcker Plan) as very low.

I continue to maintain that if Obama is genuine in his desire to address risk on Wall Street, he needs to fire his financial generals charged with executing his plan. Unless and until that happens, I believe Obama’s stumping yesterday was nothing more than mere political pandering in an attempt to steal the attention from the historic results in the Massachusetts Senate race.


Related Sense on Cents Commentary

If Wall Street Wants a Fight, Obama Should…; (January 21, 2010)

  • Fed Up

    Obama has continually shown himself to be nothing more than a follower of the “plan of the day” and what will garner popular support and a bump in the polls.

    Obama does not even understand how Wall Street works. He is supposed to define how they are regulated? The blind leading the blind.

  • TML

    This administration has proven itself to be nothing more than a “flavor of the day’ operation.

    What have they truly accomplished? In trying to keep everybody happy but especially their Democratic base they get absolutely nothing done.

    Many Americans who watch people and situations closely see nothing but a pack of empty suits and and broken promises.

  • Patriot

    Good read and well written. Informative as always.

    In addressing this topic are we supposed to think that Obama has any real clue as to what an SIV is? I mean really. Then what about a CDO, the ABX, the VIX.

    For that matter, how much does Obama’s staff really know about the true inner workings of Wall Street.

    I agree with TML that Barack and team are a “flavor of the day” organization.

    • Rock

      Is there any question that the only real letters that our representatives in Washington know are P and L …that is how much will they PROFIT and how much will we LOSE.

  • Dr. N

    I’m not all that sophisticated in the ins and outs of prop trading.However, from where I sit, I cannot think of a legitimate reason for SIVs.

    I’d also like to see dark pools and risk levels illuminated. The regulators should know what’s going on and we should know the magnitude of trades and holdings and the risk
    levels of the institutions we deal with.

    Of course, whether regulators would do what they should is another question.

    I enjoy your view point. Thanks for the hard work.
    Cheers, Dr.N

  • Bill

    Obama is most probably just out there mouthing words that he thinks will mollify an outraged public, with little or no understanding of what he is saying and likely little intent on any meaningful follow through. I think his major problem is he believes his own b______t.

Recent Posts