Asian banks review US ties

Cost will rise when tough new rules on derivatives come into force

SINGAPORE: Asian banks are reviewing relationships with their US counterparts to avoid being caught by tough new American rules on derivatives trading that are about to come into force.

From the start of next year, non-US banks that annually deal in at least US$8bil worth of products such as interest rate swaps with American counterparties are expected to be subject to new derivatives rules in the Dodd-Frank Act.

In practice that means they will need to register as swap dealers with US regulators and abide by their rules on capital requirements and risk management, all of which adds to costs.

“If I have the choice, I just don't want to deal with a US person',” said a treasury manager at a regional Asian bank.

“We're still looking at our compliance situation, but it may mean that in future I need to ask all my US counterparties if there's a way they can change where they book their trades with us.”

A “US person” as defined by the regulation is a relatively broad term, intended by regulators to apply to any person or entity that will have an effect on American commerce.

The Dodd-Frank Act was spurred by the 2008 financial crisis and aims to impose tighter supervision of cross-border derivatives trade following incidents such as the loss-making trades by the socalled “London Whale” at JPMorgan's UK office.

But some lawyers say even entities that deal in a relatively small amount of derivatives could be forced to execute trades on an electronic platform and put them through a central clearing house acceptable to American regulators.

That has prompted a knee-jerk reaction from some Asian institutions to consider cutting all their derivative trading relationships with US counterparties, anxious to avoid higher trading costs and the spotlight of American regulators.

In reality, few banks were likely in the long term to cut all trading with US banks given that they provided a lot of liquidity to the market, and it would be hard to remain active in the global markets without them, he added.

In Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan combined, around US$143.1bil of interest rate derivatives were traded every day in April 2010, according to the most recent figures from the Bank of International Settlements.

While still small compared with the US$1.2 trillion traded in the UK and the US$642bil in the United States, the turnover has almost tripled from the US$50.8bil recorded in 2004.

American banks are big players in global over-the-counter derivatives markets, with JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Corp accounting for about 37% of all outstanding contracts, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

Asian players have a smaller share, although Singapore banks DBS Group Holdings, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp and United Overseas Bank Ltd account for a large part of the S$282bil of interest rate swaps cleared at the Singapore Exchange since it launched its clearing service in November 2010, analysts estimate.

Lawyers say US banks operating in Asia are now rethinking how they structure themselves and handle their trades.

“US groups that want to remain competitive in the non-US market will need to develop a structure that enables them to trade in a way that does not scare their counterparties away,” said Theodore Paradise, a partner at law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell in Tokyo. - Reuters

Why 'Occupy Wall Street'? Job growth fails to dent US unemployment rate!

Tweet

Why 'Occupy Wall Street'?

 

Steve Denning, Contributor

RADICAL MANAGEMENT: Rethinking leadership and innovation

Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife

For people wondering why the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement is spreading across the country, an article earlier this year in  Bloomberg by Danielle Kucera and Christine Harper sheds some light. It discusses the continuing disconnect between the amount of pay in finance and the value generated to society:

Wall Street traders still earn much more than brain surgeons. An oil trader with 10 years in the business is likely to earn at least $1 million this year, while a neurosurgeon with similar time on the job makes less than $600,000, recruiters estimated.

After a decade of deal-making, merger bankers take home about $2 million, more than 10 times what a similarly seasoned cancer researcher gets.

“I don’t think it’s healthy for the economy to be this skewed,” said Stephen Rose, a professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “I believe there’s some sort of connection between value added to the economy and pay. Everyone is losing sight of any fundamentals.”

Yet many bankers think they’re not paid enough

For those in middle class finding it difficult to make ends meet or for recent college graduates struggling to find a decent job, the pay numbers are truly eye-popping.

In the first three quarters of 2010, eight of Wall Street’s largest banks set aside about $130 billion for compensation and benefits, enough to pay each worker more than $121,000 for nine months of work. That’s up from the same period four years earlier — before the crisis — when the lenders set aside a total of $113 billion, or enough to pay an average $114,400 to each worker.

Calculated in dollars, average pay per employee has risen at Bank of America Corp. [BAC] Citigroup Inc. [C], Credit Suisse Group AG [CSGN] and UBS AG [UBS]and declined at Deutsche Bank AG [DBK], Goldman Sachs Group Inc. [GS], JPMorgan Chase [JPM] and Morgan Stanley [MS] since the same period in 2006.

“The bottom line is all the people in investment  banking understand that they work harder and are under more stress,” said Jeanne Branthover, a managing director at Wall Street recruitment firm Boyden Global Executive Search. “Many don’t think they’re paid enough.”

What is the basis for these financial rewards?

John Cassidy, writing in The New Yorker in an article entitled What Good Is Wall Street? asked a banker how he and his co-workers felt about making loads of money when much of the country was struggling.

“A lot of people don’t care about it or think about it,” he replied. “They say, it’s a market, it’s still open, and I’ll sell my labor for as much as I can until nobody wants to buy it.” But you, I asked, what do you think? “I tend to think we do create value,” he said. “It’s not a productive value in a very visible sense, like finding a cure for cancer. We’re middlemen. We bring together two sides of a deal. That’s not a very elevated thing, but I can’t think of any elevated economy that doesn’t need middlemen.”

The [banker] is right: Wall Street bankers create some economic value. But do they create enough of it to justify the rewards they reap? In the first nine months of 2010, the big six banks cleared more than thirty-five billion dollars in profits.

It wasn’t always this way

It hasn’t always been this way. Cassidy notes that from around 1940 to 1980 things were different.

Economic historians refer to [this as] a period of “financial repression,” during which regulators and policymakers, reflecting public suspicion of Wall Street, restrained the growth of the banking sector. They placed limits on interest rates, prohibited deposit-taking institutions from issuing securities, and, by preventing financial institutions from merging with one another, kept most of them relatively small. During this period, major financial crises were conspicuously absent, while capital investment, productivity, and wages grew at rates that lifted tens of millions of working Americans into the middle class.

Banking of course wasn’t the only factor. This was a period when oligopolies were in charge of the marketplace and could charge pretty much what they wanted, even for products that weren’t particularly good. So they could afford to offer life-time employment with good salaries.

Since the early nineteen-eighties, by contrast, financial blowups have proliferated and living standards have stagnated. Is this coincidence?

For a long time, economists and policymakers have accepted the financial industry’s appraisal of its own worth, ignoring the market failures and other pathologies that plague it. Even after all that has happened, there is a tendency in Congress and the White House to defer to Wall Street because what happens there, befuddling as it may be to outsiders, is essential to the country’s prosperity. Finally, dissidents are questioning this narrative. “There was a presumption that financial innovation is socially valuable,” [a critic] said to me. “The first thing I discovered was that it wasn’t backed by any empirical evidence. There’s almost none.”

True, but banking wasn’t the only factor. This was also a period in which the big companies that used to be in charge of the marketplace, found themselves struggling to cope with global competition and the new power of the customer and could no longer offer life-time employment at high salaries.

One might have hoped that the banks would have provided an element of stability in a turbulent period. As it turned out, the net effect of the financial sector has been to aggravate the instability.

Slum lords in pin-striped suits

The case for bankers, if any, rests on the argument that their activities grow the economic pie. However, most of the income comes from extracting rents in a zero-sum game. Cassidy quotes Gerald Epstein, an economist at the University of Massachusetts:

These types of things don’t add to the pie. They redistribute it—often from taxpayers to banks and other financial institutions.

Cassidy’s overall take? He cites with approval Lord Adair Turner, the chairman of Britain’s top financial watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, who has described much of what happens on Wall Street and in other financial centers as “socially useless activity”:

Many people in the City and on Wall Street are the financial equivalent of slumlords or toll collectors in pin-striped suits. If they retired to their beach houses en masse, the rest of the economy would be fine, or perhaps even healthier.

_________________
Steve Denning’s most recent book is: The Leader’s Guide to Radical Management (Jossey-Bass, 2010).

Follow Steve Denning on Twitter @stevedenning

And join the Jossey-Bass online conference webinar”: Sep 22-Oct 20, 2011. My session is on Thursday October 13 at noon ET. To register, go here and use discount code 

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Job growth fails to dent US unemployment rate

Economy created 103,000 new jobs in September, but unemployment remained high at 9.1 per cent.

Al Jazeera and agencies

Frustrated with the ailing economy, protesters have staged #Occupy rallies in over 500 American cities [Getty]

The US economy created 103,000 jobs in September, the labour department has reported, a much stronger figure than expected but not enough to lower the unemployment rate.

Economists had expected Friday's report to say that the economy only replaced 60,000 jobs in September.
The private sector accounted for all of the the gains, which were boosted in part by the return of 45,000 telecommunications workers who had been on strike in August.

"Job gains occurred in professional and business services, health care, and construction. Government employment continued to trend down," the labour department said.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate was still stagnant at 9.1 per cent for the third straight month in September.

For African-Americans, the unemployment rate is 16.7 per cent - the highest it has been in 27 years and double the rate of unemployed whites.

Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, explained that the number of unemployed and under-employed Americans is in the millions.

"There are still 14 million Americans who aren't working today, even though they'd love to have a job," she said.

"Beyond that, there are something like six million that have been unemployed for more than six months. That is a unique feature of this recession - how long people are staying out of work."

She said there are another nine million Americans "who are working part-time jobs because, quite frankly, that's the only job they can find".

Growing frustration

With the underlying data still dire, Friday's news is unlikely to dampen President Barack Obama's calls for congress to pass a $447bn jobs bill- which he says could create 1.9mn new jobs.

In depth coverage of US financial crisis protests

He said on Thursday said that America's growing #Occupy protest movement reflected people's frustration with the American financial system and the country's declining economy.

"I think people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works," he said at the White House.

Republicans, who oppose Obama's jobs bill, said the latest jobs figures were another indication of Obama's mismanagement of the economy.

"There were far too few jobs created this month, which shows the need to spend less time making campaign style speeches and more time trying to work together to identify policies that we both can agree will create an environment for job creation," Eric Cantor, the House of Representatives majority, leader said.

Al Jazeera's Culhane said that Obama is playing "campaign politics" by "going all around the country saying blame the republicans".

But, she points out, "no US president in recent history has ever won a second term with unemployment anything close to this high".

 Newscribe : get free news in real time

Layoffs sweep Wall Street, along with low morale

Tweet

By Lauren Tara LaCapra  NEW YORK

(Reuters) - In early summer, before layoffs began sweeping across Wall Street, billboard-sized photos of employees were plastered on the walls, pillars and elevator banks of Credit Suisse Group AG's offices in the United States and abroad.

The museum-quality prints, depicting workers from administrative assistants to senior executives, were emblazoned with motivational words like "Proactive" and "Partner." By mid-July, however, the photos disappeared and the Swiss banking giant began laying off 2,000 employees.

Security guards prevented employees from taking cell-phone pictures as the posters were stripped away, according to one employee who was present.

"It sent an entirely wrong message," said an employee, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "Management literally threw away that kind of money on something so trivial, while planning to cut thousands of jobs."

A bank spokeswoman declined to comment on the internal campaign or the employee's comments.

Credit Suisse's timing illustrates the unanticipated dangers of rampant job-cutting, which tend to run in cycles on Wall Street. Employee morale often plummets at a time when survivors are asked to pick up more responsibility and customer relations can suffer as service and relationships deteriorate.



CUTTING 'MUSCLE AND BONE'

What's more, layoffs inartfully constructed can come across to shareholders as Band-Aid solutions that at best temporarily cut expenses and at worst pare away reserves of talented people.

"They finished cutting the fat and now they're into the muscle and bone," said Tim White, a managing partner who specializes in wealth management at the recruiting firm Kaye/Bassman International in Dallas.

Credit Suisse has plenty of company in its cost-cutting campaign. HSBC, Barclays PLC, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Bank of New York Mellon Corp have announced plans to ax thousands of workers in recent months. On Thursday, Bank of America Corp Chief Executive Brian Moynihan sent a memo to senior executives outlining plans to cut another 3,500 jobs.

The planned cuts at Bank of America have pushed the number of financial sector layoffs this year to 18,252 -- 6 percent higher than in the comparable period in 2010, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm that keeps a daily tab on layoff announcements.

Some companies began the culling earlier this year -- HSBC has already axed about 5,000 employees, with 25,000 more set to get pink slips by the end of 2012 -- and others, such as Goldman Sachs, said that cuts will come by year's end.

That is not good for morale.

BITING INTO CLIENT SERVICE

Hours have become longer, trading floors have more open seats and fresh young faces are taking over offices where high-level personnel once sat. The highest-paid people can be easy targets for layoffs now, given the cost of keeping them employed and the eagerness of younger workers to take on their roles, even at less pay, executive recruiters said.

Changes in pay structures mandated in part by the Dodd-Frank financial reform laws have exacerbated the problem.

Banks that used to pay modest base salaries supplemented by opulent stock-and-option packages that encouraged meeting short-term performance goals now are weighting compensation toward base salary.

Managing directors at investment banks have seen a typical base salary double to $400,000, said Paul Sorbera, president of Alliance Consulting. Meanwhile, 2011 bonuses are expected to fall by up to 30 percent for top earners, according to pay consulting firm Johnson Associates.

The shift erodes Wall Street's former flexibility to lower end-of-year bonuses in bad times and forces a heavier reliance on layoffs.

The danger is that client service suffers.

"Banking clients abhor relationship-manager turnover," said Heather Hammond, a senior member of Russell Reynolds' financial services practice.

Investors, for their part, tend to view cost-cutting as a short-term solution that fails to address fundamental issues relating to capital, strategy and the ability to endure through hard economic times.

At Credit Suisse, some senior jobs have been consolidated as executives have been escorted toward early retirement with offers of bonus bridges and other payments, sources familiar with the matter say.

Managing directors in businesses that have missed revenue targets have been told to reduce millions of dollars' worth of headcount expenses, according to a managing director who received such a request. In some areas, including operations, legal and technology, more work is being outsourced and mid-level employees are being replaced by consultants.

"People are leaving resumes on the printers, hoping someone picks it up," the Credit Suisse employee said.

Some sources believe that banks are repeating their typical hiring strategy: Cutting staff levels too deeply in bad times only to rush out with open checkbooks when markets recover.

"When people are getting hired, fired, hired, fired, every two years, it's very difficult to run a business," said Conrad Ciccotello, a finance professor at Georgia State University who has studied the issue. "There is precious human capital destroyed in vicious boom-and-bust cycles that is costly to replace."

(Reporting by Lauren Tara LaCapra; Editing by Richard Chang and Jan paschal)

 Newscribe : get free news in real time