posted
New world on Wall Street Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to face more oversight from the Federal Reserve. Change provides more funding and opens door to more mergers.
By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: September 22, 2008: 7:19 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- And then there were none. Federal regulators converted Wall Street's remaining stand-alone investment banks - Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - into bank holding companies Sunday night.
The move allows Goldman and Morgan to scoop up retail banks and to streamline their borrowing from the Federal Reserve. The shift also is aimed at removing them as targets of nervous investors and customers, who brought down their former rivals Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch this year.
But it also puts Goldman and Morgan under the Fed's supervision, increasing the agency's regulatory oversight and possibly forcing them to raise additional capital. As banks, Morgan and Goldman will be forced to take less risk, which will mean fewer profits.
And it brings to a close the era of the Wall Street investment bank, a storied institution that traded stocks and bonds, advised mergers and showered lavish bonuses on its executives.
"The separation of investment banking and commercial banking has come to an end," said Bert Ely, an independent banking consultant.
The conversion is but the latest in a series of unprecedented events on Wall Street as it convulses through the global credit crisis. In the past eight days, the federal government announced a $700 billion plan to rescue the financial sector by buying up troubled mortgage assets and an $85 billion emergency loan to insurance titan American International Group. Also, Lehman filed for bankruptcy and Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch.
Morgan (MS, Fortune 500) and Goldman (GS, Fortune 500), whose shares plummeted last week before the $700 billion bailout was unveiled, will likely avoid those fates with the conversion, experts said.
"They were afraid they'd get killed if they didn't [convert]," said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics. "The Fed is scrambling to take the remaining targets off the radar."
Beefing up the retail banks The duo is expected to quickly add to their tiny existing retail banking divisions, which will give them access to a cheaper and more stable source of funding - customer deposits - rather than the volatile short-term funding they rely on. The companies, which both requested the conversion, signaled as much in separate press releases Sunday.
They have plenty to pick from now that the credit crisis has devastated the banking sector.
Morgan, which has $36 billion in deposits, may already have a partner in mind. Rumors have flown on Wall Street in the past week that it would hook up with Wachovia (WB, Fortune 500), a large but troubled bank. Sunday's shift would make such a merger easier.
With $20 billion in deposits, Goldman said it plans to grow its deposit base through acquisitions and internally. It is also shifting assets from other divisions into its Goldman Sachs Bank USA, which will become one of the 10 largest banks in the United States with $150 billion in assets.
Access to the Fed funding The action also solidifies their standing with the Fed. While the investment banks received emergency access to the Fed funding in the wake of Bear Stearns' demise in March, Goldman and Morgan will now have all the same privileges at the Fed lending window as their banking peers.
As part of Sunday's move, the Fed extended additional credit to Goldman and Morgan, as well as Merrill, allowing them to pledge a wider array of collateral.
The companies also hope the shift will end investors' fears that the investment banks are not solid enough to survive.
"This new bank holding structure will ensure that Morgan Stanley is in the strongest possible position," said John Mack, Morgan's chief executive. "It also offers the marketplace certainty about the strength of our financial position and our access to funding."
"We believe that Goldman Sachs, under Federal Reserve supervision, will be regarded as an even more secure institution with an exceptionally clean balance sheet and a greater diversity of funding sources," said Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman's chief executive
Turmoil on Wall Street The Fed's decision is just the latest in a dizzying series of events over the past week representing a dramatic reordering of the financial world.
All eyes now turn to the troubled traditional banks, such as Washington Mutual (WM, Fortune 500) and Wachovia, which are scrambling to shore up their books as lending has frozen up and investor confidence has sunk.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Maybe this is an end of an era. But it really ain't over yet.
The fat lady has to sing
I believe she is pretty much done with rehearsals. Just a matter of time. Btw, did you see that article in Time about the US becoming like France? Nationalizing the Financial sector like Mitterand did in the early 80's? It's a good article, though a bit snide, still a decent read.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the really funny part of all of this. This a major Socialist move, albeit inevitable, but the White House is the one pushing it. PM must be having a stroke after all his banter about Dems being Socialists. ROFLMAO. This is just too funny for words!!!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah while everybody was worried about socialised medicine? while everybody was arguing about their tax dollars being used to HEAL people? the investment banks stole all their money
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pm is used to the Gov. giving him a living section 8.
Anyway it just seems like the natural order of things is taking place. The stone age made way for the age of metals.
If something is allowed to keep doing what it damn well wants to do and it keeps hurting the majority for the sake of a few over and over then it has to be regulated.
especially when they criminals come to the public for public funds and exspect to get them no questions asked and dispersed buy one of there toadies
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: yeah while everybody was worried about socialised medicine? while everybody was arguing about their tax dollars being used to HEAL people? the investment banks stole all their money
Wow glass, I'm shocked you had no comment on the Time article, The United States of France. I thought for sure you'd have a comment.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow glass, I'm shocked you had no comment on the Time article, The United States of France. I thought for sure you'd have a comment
i suppose i don't have much to say cuz i've known we are going this way for ten years.
the only real shock to me is how fast it's happening. i'm the first to admit i'm a (chronic) critic, but i wasn't even close to grasping just how bad things were..
our Fearless Leaders refused to look straight at and see that the nationalization of other countries economies was a competitive advantage. they sold US down the river for a few campaign dollars..
you cannot expect American Small Business people to compete against the People Republic of China...
and when i said anything about it? people called me names and suggested i'm a whiner or called me a protectionist, as if looking out for yourself is a bad thing...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Wow glass, I'm shocked you had no comment on the Time article, The United States of France. I thought for sure you'd have a comment
i suppose i don't have much to say cuz i've known we are going this way for ten years.
the only real shock to me is how fast it's happening. i'm the first to admit i'm a (chronic) critic, but i wasn't even close to grasping just how bad things were..
our Fearless Leaders refused to look straight at and see that the nationalization of other countries economies was a competitive advantage. they sold US down the river for a few campaign dollars..
you cannot expect American Small Business people to compete against the People Republic of China...
and when i said anything about it? people called me names and suggested i'm a whiner or called me a protectionist, as if looking out for yourself is a bad thing...
LOL! Your still a whiner, as am I, but I do value your opinion. To be honest, I did not see the Bear Stearns collapse coming, I didn't realize the amount of exposure to bad debt the big investment banks were exposed to. So I was caught a bit off guard. Though I have no financial repercussions from my lack of knowledge, I'm sure many have been devastated by the recent events on Wall St.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
one of the things that nobody talks about much was the new accounting rules they put in place last Nov...
it required everybody to "mark to market" on level three assets..
this was probably more devastating than the mortgage notes not giving the expected returns becuase all of these basturds were basically lying (yes Mach fraud, but sortof legal fraud) about the values of their holding...
Nov 3, 2007
Page 1 of 2 THE BEAR'S LAIR Level 3 storm about to hit Wall Street By Martin Hutchinson
There's a mystery on Wall Street. Merrill Lynch wrote off $8.4 billion in its subprime mortgage business, a figure revised up from $4.9 billion, yet Goldman Sachs reported an excellent quarter and didn't feel the need for any write-offs. The real secret of the difference is likely to be in the details of their accounting, and in particular in the murky world, shortly to be revealed, of their "Level
3" asset portfolios.
Both Merrill and Goldman have Harvard chairmen - Merrill's Stan O'Neal from Harvard Business School and Goldman's Lloyd Blankfein from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Thus it's pretty unlikely their approaches to business are significantly different - or is a Harvard MBA really worth minus $8.4 billion compared with a law degree? (The special case of George W Bush may be disregarded in answering that question.)
looking further back? you can see how the rule changes can have very big "splashes"
New Accounting Rules Could Roil The Markets November 28, 2001 | By Rick Wayman
FAS 142 is the accounting rule introduced in 2001 that changed how companies treat goodwill. To avoid making bad investment decisions, investors must be aware of this rule's impact on reported earnings. This accounting rule change impacts earnings in two major ways, both of which could give uninformed investors a wrong signal:
this rule change had very unexpected results...
my DD at the time ( just last fall not in '01) pointed to Merryl as the least exposed to the risk associated with this new rule...
when they got bought? i knew we were in even more trouble than i had imagined... but like i said? i never imagined just how much these folks were LYING.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goldman Sachs has disclosed its Level 3 assets, two quarters before it would be compelled to do so in the period ending February 29, 2008. Their total was $72 billion, which at first sight looks reasonable because it is only 8% of total assets. However the problem becomes more serious when you realize that $72 billion is twice Goldman's capital of $36 billion. In an extreme situation therefore, Goldman's entire existence rests on the value of its Level 3 assets.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Goldman Sachs has disclosed its Level 3 assets, two quarters before it would be compelled to do so in the period ending February 29, 2008. Their total was $72 billion, which at first sight looks reasonable because it is only 8% of total assets. However the problem becomes more serious when you realize that $72 billion is twice Goldman's capital of $36 billion. In an extreme situation therefore, Goldman's entire existence rests on the value of its Level 3 assets.
yet everybody is yakking about subprime mortgages?
Interesting last few paragraphs Glass.....
Given the size of the overall figures involved and the excessive earnings that Wall Street's participants have enjoyed over the last decade, a taxpayer-funded bailout of Wall Street's titans would seem politically impossible, however loud the lobbyists scream for it.
In the long run, that is probably a blessing for the US and world economies.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Wow glass, I'm shocked you had no comment on the Time article, The United States of France. I thought for sure you'd have a comment
i suppose i don't have much to say cuz i've known we are going this way for ten years.
the only real shock to me is how fast it's happening. i'm the first to admit i'm a (chronic) critic, but i wasn't even close to grasping just how bad things were..
our Fearless Leaders refused to look straight at and see that the nationalization of other countries economies was a competitive advantage. they sold US down the river for a few campaign dollars..
you cannot expect American Small Business people to compete against the People Republic of China...
and when i said anything about it? people called me names and suggested i'm a whiner or called me a protectionist, as if looking out for yourself is a bad thing...
LOL! Your still a whiner, as am I, but I do value your opinion. To be honest, I did not see the Bear Stearns collapse coming, I didn't realize the amount of exposure to bad debt the big investment banks were exposed to. So I was caught a bit off guard. Though I have no financial repercussions from my lack of knowledge, I'm sure many have been devastated by the recent events on Wall St.
Lack of knowledge and how much was not said by BS is what caused it's collapsed and not outside forces. Bad bets on their part was the cause. And it was INEVITABLE (yes Glas it was) that they would collapse unless of course someone bailed them out and such.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And so what if the Government does take over our lives.
Hate to tell you it aiready has for years and with the influence of rich lobbiest that plan the course that we take how we retire, what we will buy,what kind of medical care we will have ,what wars we will fight and who will fight them,different standars of law. you can go on forever the wealthy control the government and the government controls us.
Very simple and we are ready to fight if some one says we are not free.
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's the really funny part of all of this. This a major Socialist move, albeit inevitable, but the White House is the one pushing it. PM must be having a stroke after all his banter about Dems being Socialists. ROFLMAO. This is just too funny for words!!!
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! I was worried about Obama moving our country to socialism, but at the current pace, everything will be socialized long before the election. I have repeatedly said that I think Bush has done a terrible job on the economy. Now, I think that Bush may be the worst president in the history of the United States, at least from an economic standpoint! I doubt if even Obama could do as much damage as Bush has allowed on his watch (even though he would like to)!
I absolutely hate this manipulation of the market by the government. Not allowing shorting of stocks - what kind of crap is that? Not allowing banks to fail? Where's the guarantee that you or I can't fail? I think all these government morons should be rounded up and shipped off to Cuba!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am with you Glass Bush,Chenny,and Rumsfeld all go to Iraq.
And all of them in the same hummer on a solo scouting mission, a pink one with no body armor.
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I was just reading through post and found PM mocking me with , "I think that Bush may be the worst president in the history of the United States".
Ya know what that means? Since PM never strays from standard RNC bull sh-t, it is now the Party line from them that dubya is the crooked dunce I have always told you he is and even the RNC has realized the need to own up.
They know that, unless McCain can find some way to disavow this administration and make us believe he and the Party never approved and never forced the Administration's ultra conservative (and ultra simple minded) fascist agendas and its bass-akerds and idiotic free market (read that trickle down) notion of economics on us, he will loose. As he should!
Checking through the record, what we have had through the reign of King dubya, economically speaking, is nothing but the most basic and standard republican Party mantra that McCain has been chanting for decades......hell, most of them learned it while they were still in knee pants from none other than the the constant chant of McCain that republican and "no government oversight" are synonyms.
Ain't it a-may-zin how obedient the Party loyal be? Out comes not just a new line to regurgitate but one that is a direct denial of the crap they have been parroting all along and Polly never bats an eye, just blurts out,. "I think that Bush may be the worst president in the history of the United States".
I laughed so hard my sides are hurting.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
YES - Bush , Cheyney and all of the wall street elite and all their cronies s/b sent to Iraq - and they should fight to win ----and I dont say it to be sarcastic - bush and cronies and wall street elite stole america and Iraq is where they sould be........
I say no to bailout - i say jail time or Iraq time for the criminals---
And, I do not support Obama either - I say each man/woman for oneself - this is bs for me to enslave myself for the elite or the victims, etc...
Posts: 864 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am not mocking you, I am agreeing with you that Bush has done a terrible job on the economy, (however, probably for a much different reason).
I am not advocating a bunch of new regulations or proposals to interfere with the free market. Quite the contrary, I would argue that the free market should be allowed to function, with all those businesses who screwed up being allowed to fail (regardless of their size). That would send the message that gambling with your business does have consequences and future companies would understand that. Unfortunately, the lesson to be learned by big business from the current situation is that you can take all the chances you like and the government will bail you out when you lose.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
all those "lessons" you speak of? they were already dealt out years ago...
if these guys were capable of learning? we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now...
the worst part is that i'm beginning to hear reasonbale questions about if the bailout will even work, which means another 700 billion is wasted (on top the Iraq war money)...
as far as i'm concerned? all of this is just one big ripoff.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? You mean WE don't get a say if 'we the people' want this bailout? Wonder why they can't put it on the ballot this November? lol
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What? You mean WE don't get a say if 'we the people' want this bailout?
Yes, YOU DO GET A SAY! Have you contacted your congressman to let him know what you think?
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Bdgee,
I am not mocking you, I am agreeing with you that Bush has done a terrible job on the economy, (however, probably for a much different reason).
I am not advocating a bunch of new regulations or proposals to interfere with the free market. Quite the contrary, I would argue that the free market should be allowed to function, with all those businesses who screwed up being allowed to fail (regardless of their size). That would send the message that gambling with your business does have consequences and future companies would understand that. Unfortunately, the lesson to be learned by big business from the current situation is that you can take all the chances you like and the government will bail you out when you lose.
Quite clearly, you need to learn to use a dictionary and, then, look up the usage of the word "mocking". There is nothing in mocking that requires disagreement. Indeed, mocking is to copy (sometimes without thought).
The free market cannot function, as it is an overly simple minded pie-in-the-sky boondoggle and utopian dream for people not quite bright enough to understand that their own selfish greed, which is what brings them to the table to feed in the first place, and which in turn fools them into believing they can understand, is at work as well in the money managers and that same greed in those money managers will never allow the corrections the free market insanity insist the market will use to correct itself.
Free markertism is a failure looking for a time and place to destroy an economy.
PM, those guys didn't loose....they stole! The proper punishment for stealing is a great deal different and, in its own way, is intended to be more painful than simply monetary loss. You're asking us to permit and sanction their transgressions.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
