Tax Wall Street trades

July 16, 2009

Reports of the death of the investment bank have been greatly exaggerated, as Mark Twain might have put it.

It was just 10 months ago, after Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley
quickly converted themselves into bank holding companies, that nearly everyone had written off investment banking. All those predictions about Wall Street firms becoming less profitable and boring places to work seem laughable in light of Goldman’s blowout second-quarter profits and JPMorgan Chase’s equally impressive earnings.

Now all the chatter is about how little things have changed on Wall Street, with trading revenues and fees from underwriting stock deals padding the bottom lines of both banks. Back in September, The New York Times ran a lengthy article headlined “Wall Street, R.I.P.: The End of an Era.”

But this week the paper of record is writing about the return of the gilded pay package at Goldman.

Of course, things are different on Wall Street. Two big investment banking competitors are gone, leaving more opportunities for the remaining players. Banks like Goldman and Morgan Stanley owe a large debt of gratitude — and maybe their very existence — to the federal government.

In particular, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan collectively sold more than $80 billion in government-guaranteed debt. The government-backed bond sales enabled the banks to raise desperately needed capital at a time when investor confidence was at an all-time low.

It’s amazing what a big bank can do when it’s all but got the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind it.

The big trading gains at Goldman and JPMorgan also should put to rest the notion that banks can’t generate hefty trading revenues, if forced to operate with lower levels of leverage. The gross leverage ratio — a measure of a bank’s debt to assets — dropped to 14.2 at Goldman, nearly half of what it was at the start of the financial crisis.

Leverage becomes less critical when there are fewer competitors around and a bank’s cost of borrowing money is negligible. Even so, Goldman is operating with a higher degree of leverage than most hedge funds.

So what’s to be done?

Investors and Wall Street critics could simply accept the revival at the nation’s big banks as a sign that the financial crisis is abating. One can rightly argue the speedy return of outsized profits on Wall Street is simply the price to be paid for restoring the natural order of the financial system.

But Wall Street shouldn’t be able to get off that easy. It could be months, even years, before the Obama administration’s proposed regulatory overhaul of the financial system takes effect. And even then, it’s not clear that the Obama plan is the right preventive for avoiding financial calamity in the future.

Here’s one thing the Obama administration and legislators on Capitol Hill can do right away to rein in some of the excess that has begun to reappear on Wall Street: Impose a new proprietary trading tax on big banks.

This would be a tax aimed specifically at the profits a bank generates from prop trading, which is trading stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities for a bank’s own account. In essence, this new tax would be a penalty imposed on banks for excessive risk taking.

The chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, Sheila Bair, recently endorsed a similar proprietary trading tax scheme in an interview with Bloomberg News. Bair would impose a special fee on any too-big-to-fail bank that engages in proprietary trading or non-traditional lending activity.

Bair’s plan is a good idea. But a prop trading tax has the added benefit of forcing Goldman, JPMorgan and other firms to separate profits for prop trading from profits arising from customer trades.

Banks currently lump all trading revenue together — making it impossible for investors to understand how these giant financial institutions tick. A prop trading tax would allow investors to get a picture of the risks embedded in a bank’s trading operation.

But whether it is a tax or a fee, the key is for the nation’s elected leaders to do something. To simply stand back and marvel at Wall Street’s ability to reinvent itself is only setting the stage for more trouble ahead. (Editing by Martin Langfield)

UPDATE: Here is my colleague Felix Salmon’s take on Bair’s proposal.

UPDATE 2.0: Great post by John Carney at Clusterstock on Goldman’s defacto government-guarantee to print money.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

That whole post was gibberish. To think that investors can`t figure out the way that these company`s work because of the way they move assets is totally bogus. We are in the age of Internet knowledge .We can find out anything we want .All we need is to look in the right places. no company can keep secrets from us . Lightspeed


“All we need is to look in the right places. no company can keep secrets from us”

Yeah. Like JPM.

Posted by Warp | Report as abusive

What this will do is drive more business to foreign banks and/or force GS and MS to simply move their legal headquarters to London, which I think one or both will probably do in the next 5-10 years anyway as Asia and other emerging markets become more important to their businesses. This will accomplish nothing and ultimately hurt New York and the US. There are better ways of encouraging less risk.

Posted by Chris | Report as abusive

Enough of these horrible institutions, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan. These investment banks should be regulated out of business and they serve no useful purpose to the American economy. Even if half or a quarter of Matt Taibbi’s article “The Great American Bubble Machine” is true then the amount of damage they have caused the United State and it’s people is far worse than any terrorist organization could have dreamed.

Posted by Shawn | Report as abusive

…introduce even more tax multipliers into the global financial systems just as we have the logarithms stabilised ?

If these institutions are so evil, why not liquidate all your investments, cancel your insurances and stash the whole lot under the bed in your camper/caravan/tent/hillbilly outpost, together with the cr@p you utter ?

get real.

Posted by Casper | Report as abusive

Whenever lefties see a (perceived) market problem they want rectified, their first impulse is either to tax it or regulate it. MG wants to do both >sigh< This is consistent and, frankly, becoming quite tiresome. Moreover, the argument that these banks ‘owe’ their existence to the fed back-up is rubbish. One might just as well argue that we owe EVERYTHING to the feds, ‘cuz they set up the laws that allow business to flourish and on and on. Only someone with a naive faith in government – such as MG – would believe that. To quote Casper above: ‘Get real’

Posted by gotthardbahn | Report as abusive

profile: ‘He does not buy, sell or own individual stocks.’ No wonder he battles with these concepts.

Posted by Casper | Report as abusive