Fed pushes largest US banks to shrink

The proposals aren't new. But combined with recent actions by the Fed and other federal regulators, experts say they carve out a tough stance.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
U.S. Federal Reserve Board member Daniel Tarullo (l.) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Martin Gruenberg testify about Wall Street reform before a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, September 9.

The Federal Reserve is pushing the biggest U.S. banks to shrink so that they're less of a risk to the financial system.

In testimony at a Senate hearing Tuesday, Fed Gov. Daniel Tarullo highlighted several proposals that regulators are working on. They include imposing additional capital requirements for the eight largest banks — including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America — that exceed the levels mandated by international regulators. That means the banks would have to set more cash aside and raise more money to increase their cushions against unexpected losses.

The amount of these "capital surcharges" would increase in proportion to how risky the regulators deem a bank to be, Tarullo told the Senate Banking Committee. That could push them to cut their risk and become less risky to the system. They would have an incentive to shed businesses and get smaller because otherwise they'd have to set aside more capital. Some of the banks have grown bigger since the crisis.

The proposals aren't new. But combined with recent actions by the Fed and other federal regulators, experts say they carve out a tough stance.

Joseph Lynyak, a regulatory attorney at the firm Dorsey & Whitney, said the regulators are signaling that they "want these companies to shrink." Big banks may reshape themselves and shed some businesses as a result of the changes, Lynyak suggested.

But banking industry groups say the requirements could limit access to loans for businesses and consumers, by reducing the amounts that banks would have available to lend.

Some of the banks already meet the stricter capital requirements being proposed, experts say.

Stricter capital requirements were mandated by Congress after the financial crisis, which struck in 2008 and ignited the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Hundreds of U.S. banks received taxpayer bailouts during the crisis, including the eight mega-banks that would be subject to the additional layer of capital requirements that Tarullo discussed. The eight, considered so big and interconnected that each could threaten the financial system if it collapsed, are JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York Mellon and State StreetBank.

Tarullo said the Fed also is looking at possible changes to requirements for banks when they use the short-term funding markets to borrow from other banks. The idea is to reduce their reliance on those markets, which seized up during the financial crisis.

Last month, in an action viewed as signaling toughness, the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. told the 11 biggest U.S. banks that their plans for unwinding their operations in case of failure are inadequate to prevent the sort of financial disaster that struck in 2008. And last week, the regulators required all large U.S. banks to keep enough high-quality assets on hand to survive during a severe downturn. The rules subject the banks for the first time to so-called "liquidity" requirements, replacing voluntary standards. Liquidity is the ability to access cash quickly.

"The Fed is signaling to Wall Street ... that it is dead serious about making these banks assume the cost of their high-risk activities" rather than taxpayers, Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, said in a telephone interview. The group advocates strict regulation.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.