Counterparties: Sandy beached
Welcome to theÂ Counterparties email. The sign-up page isÂ here, itâ€™s just a matter of checking a box if youâ€™re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints toÂ Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com
After Sandy Weill had his say on breaking up big banks last week, backlash to his reversal was inevitable. ItÂ turns out Bank of America and Citi had already considered his idea: Execs at BofA studied breaking out troubled Countrywide Mortgage, which has been called the worst deal in finance history, as well Merrill Lynch’s securities business.Â Citi, apparently at the behest of regulators, did aÂ similar analysis and even employed Bain to conduct it.Â The bank concluded that taxÂ inefficienciesÂ precluded a breakup; they have yet to pursue changing the tax code with the same vigor they applied to abolishing Glass-Steagall.
Somewhat paradoxically, BofA decided Countrywide was too bad to let go and that Merrill was tooÂ profitableÂ to part with. The latter is just wrong, according to their own filings, as Jonathan Weil smartly points out: “Last quarter Merrill reported a net loss of $1.6 billion. It posted a $1.7 billion net loss for all of 2011″.
Before Weill made his comments, Jamie Dimon had already said that heÂ doesn’t think any of JPMorgan’s business would be better offÂ independently. He’s probably unlikely to take advice from a guy who onceÂ fired him said.Â Former JPMorgan Chairman and CEOÂ William Harrison chimed in on the merits of Dimon’s firm with this faintest of praise: “you can screw [management and risk-taking] up at a small bank or a large bank”.
The WSJ reports that Dodd-Frank’s two eponymous lawmakers don’t agree with Weill: Former Senator Chris Dodd thinks Weill is “frankly too simplistic”; Representative Barney Frank says doing “something drastic to a major part of the economy isnâ€™t a very good idea” right now.
Had Weill spoken up a few years ago, Frank says he would have been all ears. And there are also who think Weill hasn’t even started to address his past mistakes. Here’s the Roosevelt Institute’s Jeff Madrick in the NYT:Â ”What was most eye-catching was Mr. Weillâ€™s claim that the conglomerate model ‘was right for that time.’ Nothing could be further from the truth”.
What we haven’t seen is a defense of big banks not just as the status quo or too complex to tamper with, but as better, more valuable businesses which are more socially useful than the alternative. Maybe that’s another legacy of the financial crisis: even their staunchest supporters have defined the benefits of big banks down.Â â€“Â Ben Walsh
On to today’s links:
The next make-or-break moment of theÂ euro crisis: after everyone gets back from August vacation â€“Â Reuters
Germany and France endorse Draghi’s pledge to save the euro with decisive action â€“Â WSJ
The Bundesbank: still opposed to the ECB buying sovereign bonds â€“Â FT