(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

So it can be done after all.

Britain is poised to take tough steps to break up the large banks it rescued, setting it in stark contrast to the United States, which seems set on a policy of shoring up the unfair advantages it grants its too-big-to-fail banks while regulating around the edges.

It is quite a change for Britain, which has a sorry history of self-serving self-regulation in financial services combined with limp and outgunned official control.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling on Sunday told the BBC that Lloyds, RBS and Northern Rock would be partly broken up and assets sold to new entrants into the banking market. Large existing competitors such as HSBC are expected to be blocked from making bids for the assets.

Britain took over Northern Rock after a run on the bank and its rescue of Lloyds and RBS left it with stakes of 43 and 70 percent, respectively.

It is worth noting that if anything Britain is more dependent on its financial services sector than the United States.

Could it be that Britain has determined that a level playing field, strong competition and a lower risk of a crisis might actually make it more competitive internationally? I certainly think so.

It will without doubt improve the situation for the small businesses and individuals that can’t access international capital markets and depend on the banks for access to credit and other financial services.

Before we get all excited and expect the United States to follow suit with Citibank and Bank of America, it is important to recall that Britain’s Labour government is more or less on its death bed and faces an election in 2010 which the bookies and almost everyone else think it is highly unlikely to win.

There is also the matter of the European Union, which has a say over subsidies such as the ones Britain has showered on the banks. RBS said on Monday that it may be forced by the EU to sell more assets than it had planned. Lloyds is also seen likely to raise additional new capital to allow it to stay outside of an asset insurance scheme Britain is running for the banks and which would involve the government taking yet more equity in the participants.

OH WHAT A CONTRAST

The fact remains that Britain and the EU are saying that more competition is needed and taking steps to ensure that the banks which ended up needing state care are broken up. This must have an impact on how other big banks are ultimately treated, even if they did not receive the same level of direct state aid.

The equity buffer that is being required is also remarkable; the banks should end up with core tier one equity of about 10 percent, four times what they were expected to hold before the crisis.

Contrast all of this with the hopefully named Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, now wending its way through Congress. As Harvard Business School professor David Moss points out, as currently drafted this bill won’t even allow the systemically important banks it is designed to control be named, a real Monty Python-esque touch.

Think about it: we won’t even be allowed to know the identities of the firms we are potentially on the hook for. Moss points out that this neatly side-steps the idea of taxing too-whatever-to-fail status as a means of encouraging the behemoths to sell up and avoid the costs. The costs remain with the taxpayer, or potentially with a group of big firms after the fact.

The argument the U.S. administration is making, more or less, is that our complex global economy somehow demands that we have complex huge banks. If we don’t allow huge banks to persist, we’ll choke off growth. If we think we can go back to mom and pop banking, we are simply kidding ourselves. And anyway, if the U.S. doesn’t allow it, foreign banks will just scoop up the cream. With Britain and the European Union taking strong steps, that argument is losing traction. And as for complexity, well I’d have to say that the record of complexity in banking is mixed, to be kind, as far as the deal it gives to taxpayers and consumers of banking services. It would be one thing to argue for huge economies of scale for plain vanilla banking processes like clearing, but it is hard to see why that needs to be combined with derivatives and trading.

It would be nice to think the winds are blowing west across the Atlantic, but this is not usually the case.

(Editing by James Dalgleish)

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

Ken Lewis started at Bank of America 40 years ago, working his way up from junior credit analyst to the CEO suite. His employment contract at the nation's largest banks obviously predates the government's bailout of Bank of America. Yet pay czar Kenneth Feinberg may have a say on whether he cashes in on retirement benefits and accumulated compensation worth $125 million.

Some argue it is simply inappropriate for Feinberg to try to tackle Lewis' retirement package.

"A fair reading of the situation would be he is getting what he is entitled to and game over," said Alan Johnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.

But to many, Lewis is a poster child for the crisis that struck Wall Street banks last year, nearly collapsing the financial sector and resulting in taxpayers spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out firms like Bank of America.

"The Obama administration has to use every tool at its disposal to fix the pay problem, particularly the golden parachute for failed executives," said Richard Ferlauto, director of corporate governance and pension investments for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, one of the largest U.S. labor unions.

Should Lewis get his retirement package in full? Leave your answer in the comments section.

Judge Rakoff has rejected the settlement deal between the SEC and Bank of America. He clearly wasn't happy with it to begin with, and subsequent briefs from the two parties did nothing to allay his concerns. At the end of the day, he hated the idea that B of A shareholders, on whose behalf the SEC actually brought the case, would end up paying the fine for executives' wrongdoing.

So what's the next step? According to the Reuters story, "Rakoff directed the parties to prepare for a possible trial that would begin no later than February 1, 2010."

That doesn't mean there will be a trial. The parties could come back with a settlement more to Rakoff's liking.

But presumably that would have to involve naming names. Who were the executives responsible for misleading shareholders? B of A has refused to answer that question and the SEC seems to think it doesn't have the leverage to force it out of them.

I'm happy to see this development. I'm on-record saying the SEC should pick more fights. The truth of the matter is that we need more accountability at the top. The point behind Sarbanes-Oxley, for instance, was that executives would take more responsibility for their misdeeds, in this case Ken Lewis and John Thain.

Too often, "The Corporation" gets the blame and pays the fine. But that isn't justice, nor does it deter bad behavior.

(Here's the PDF of Rakoff's full order)

Charging a bank for an implicit government guarantee to absorb losses? According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Reserve and Treasury are demanding that Bank of America pay $500 million to exit a bailout deal that was never actually signed.

That's a nice chunk of change, but taxpayers shouldn't be fooled into thinking this -- or any other bailout -- is a good deal.

A very dangerous misconception is taking root in the press, that in addition to saving the world financial system, the bank bailout is making taxpayers money.

"As big banks repay bailout, U.S. sees profit" read the headline in the New York Times on Monday. The story was parroted on evening newscasts.

The trouble is the popular view that TARP was the bailout. That very unpopular $700 billion program got all the attention because it was an easy story to tell a general audience. It had a big ugly price tag; it was debated very publicly in Congress; and, most important, the list of recipients and their take was made public all at once.

So when those recipients pay back TARP -- at a decent profit for taxpayers -- bailouts all of a sudden don't seem so bad.

But the bailout was much larger than TARP. There is FDIC's debt guarantee program, which still backs over $300 billion worth of financial sector debt; there are the Federal Reserve's emerging lending facilities, which have showered hundreds of billions of cash on banks in exchange for, well, we don't know what. There was the AIG bailout, which gave the company tens of billions more. There were changes in fair value accounting rules, which permitted banks to hide losses, and there is stupendous support for the housing market, which has rescued banks from huge write-offs.

All of these and more make up the implicit too-big-to-fail guarantee that the biggest financials have all received. The total cost won't be known for years, and the price tag is likely to be enormous.

Look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The moral of their story is that implicit guarantees alter the investment landscape in ways that are very destructive and, ultimately, very expensive.

Portfolio managers kept buying Fan and Fred backed mortgage paper even after the companies' capital structures had deteriorated significantly. They didn't care about fundamentals because they were buying a government guarantee.

But eventually the bill comes due. In Fannie's and Freddie's case, taxpayers have promised $400 billion to absorb losses.

Instead of learning from that mistake, policy-makers thought it wise to repeat it on a larger scale, backing not just the housing market, but most of the financial sector, too.

The $500 million that the Fed and Treasury could collect from Bank of America is a nice token sum. But it doesn't begin to pay the cost of BofA's implicit guarantee against failure.

Taxpayers should keep that in mind whenever they see misguided reports that they are making money from bailouts. The truth is that the biggest banks are still insolvent and, ultimately, their losses are likely to be absorbed by taxpayers.

In the Bank of America Merrill Lynch bonus imbroglio, the SEC has proposed a settlement in which, once again, the defendants neither admit nor deny wrongdoing.

Once again, the corporation would pick up the fine while responsible individuals escape uninjured. And once again, the public would be left wondering what actually happened. This isn't justice, nor will it deter fraud.

These were the frustrations expressed by Judge Jed Rakoff in court yesterday. He refused to approve the settlement because he wants to know the truth: Who was responsible for misleading shareholders, and how did they settle on a fine of $33 million?

He told both sides to return to court with more details in two weeks. For the public's sake, it's a good thing he did.

In this case, it isn't just shareholder's money at stake. It's taxpayers'. Our bail-out cash saved the bank, and we deserve to know what went on.

What the judge can accomplish isn't clear. But the simple exercise of forcing the SEC to provide more details of its case would be very valuable.

The SEC's eagerness to settle without naming names is particularly frustrating. It insists Bank of America, not executives, misled shareholders about Merrill bonuses by deliberately omitting relevant documents from its public filings.

But corporations don't mislead, people do. And if shareholders were injured, why are they the ones paying the $33 million fine?

"It's very easy to plea-bargain with shareholders' money," says Columbia law professor John Coffee. It's a shame when the SEC allows them to.

A big problem is that the SEC needs to rethink its definition of success. A drive-by settlement that collects a token payment for fraudulent behavior which the other side neither admits nor denies accomplishes nothing.

Except, perhaps, leaving Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis and colleagues off the hook. They'd obviously prefer the matter went away, not least because more disclosure will provide fodder for private lawyers targeting their bank.

But as Georgetown law professor Donald Langevoort put it to me: "If people remain wealthy after they have engineered a fraud because of the way a settlement is structured, then neither justice nor deterrence is accomplished."

To be fair, the SEC needs a much bigger litigation budget to go after the likes of Bank of America. But even so it has to be more willing to go to the mat in important cases like this, where it isn't just shareholders' money at stake. It's ours.

When I was 14, Warren Buffett wrote me a letter.

It was a response to one I'd sent him, pitching an investment idea.  For a kid interested in learning stocks, Buffett was a great role model.  His investing style -- diligent security analysis, finding competent management, patience -- was immediately appealing.

Buffett was kind enough to respond to my letter, thanking me for it and inviting me to his company's annual meeting.  I was hooked.  Today, Buffett remains famous for investing The Right Way.  He even has a television cartoon in the works, which will groom the next generation of acolytes.

But it turns out much of the story is fiction.  A good chunk of his fortune is dependent on taxpayer largess. Were it not for government bailouts, for which Buffett lobbied hard, many of his company's stock holdings would have been wiped out.

Berkshire Hathaway, in which Buffett owns 27 percent, according to a recent proxy filing, has more than $26 billion invested in eight financial companies that have received bailout money.  The TARP at one point had nearly $100 billion invested in these companies and, according to new data released by Thomson Reuters, FDIC backs more than $130 billion of their debt.

To put that in perspective, 75 percent of the debt these companies have issued since late November has come with a federal guarantee. (Click chart to enlarge in new window)

Without FDIC's debt guarantee program, even impregnable Goldman would have collapsed.

And this excludes the emergency, opaque lending facilities from the Federal Reserve that also helped rescue the big banks. Without all these bailouts, the financial system would have been forced to recapitalize itself.

Banks that couldn't finance their balance sheets would have sold toxic assets at market prices, and the losses would have wiped out their shareholder's equity.  With $7 billion at stake, Buffett is one of the biggest of these shareholders.

He even traded the bailout, seeking morally hazardous profits in preferred stock and warrants of Goldman and GE because he had "confidence in Congress to do the right thing" -- to rescue shareholders in too-big-to-fail financials from the losses that were rightfully theirs to absorb.

Keeping this in mind, I was struck by Buffett's letter to Berkshire shareholders this year:

"Funders that have access to any sort of government guarantee -- banks with FDIC-insured deposits, large entities with commercial paper now backed by the Federal Reserve, and others who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government's umbrella -- have money costs that are minimal," he wrote.

"Conversely, highly-rated companies, such as Berkshire, are experiencing borrowing costs that ... are at record levels. Moreover, funds are abundant for the government-guaranteed borrower but often scarce for others, no matter how creditworthy they may be."

It takes remarkable chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage.

Elsewhere in his letter he laments "atrocious sales practices" in the financial industry, holding up Berkshire subsidiary Clayton Homes as a model of lending rectitude.

Conveniently, he neglects to mention Wells Fargo's toxic book of home equity loans, American Express' exploding charge-offs, GE Capital's awful balance sheet, Bank of America's disastrous acquisitions of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs' reckless trading practices.

And what of Moody's, the credit-rating agency that enabled lending excesses Buffett criticizes, and in which he's held a major stake for years?  Recently Berkshire cut its stake to 16 percent from 20 percent.  Publicly, however, the Oracle of Omaha has been silent.

This is remarkably incongruous for the world's most famous financial straight-shooter. Few have called him on it, though one notable exception was a good article by Charles Piller in the Sacramento Bee earlier this year.

Buffett didn't respond to my email seeking a comment.

What saddens me is that Buffett is uniquely positioned to lobby for better public policy, but he's chosen to spend his considerable political capital protecting his own holdings.

If we learn one lesson from this episode, it's that banks should carry substantially more capital than may be necessary.  You would think Buffett would agree. He has always emphasized investing with a "margin of safety" -- so why shouldn't banks lend with one?

Yet he mocked Tim Geithner's stress tests, which forced banks to replenish their capital. Why? Is it because his banks are drastically undercapitalized?  The more capital they're forced to raise, the more his stake is diluted.

He points to Wells Fargo's deposit funding model being more robust than investment banks', but that's no excuse for letting tangible equity dwindle to three percent of assets.  At that low level, the capital structure would have collapsed were it not for bailouts.

And by the way, the strength of Wells' funding model is a result of FDIC insurance, among the government subsidies Buffett complains about in this year's letter.

To me this feels like a betrayal.  There's a reason he's Warren Buffett and not, say, Carl Icahn.

As Roger Lowenstein wrote in his 1995 biography of Buffett, "Wall Street's modern financiers got rich by exploiting their control of the public's money ... Buffett shunned this game ... In effect, he rediscovered the art of pure capitalism -- a cold-blooded sport, but a fair one."

But there's nothing fair about Buffett getting a bailout, about exploiting the taxpaying public for his own gain.  The naïve 14-year-olds among us thought he was better than this.

What would Ben Graham say?

– Mark T. Williams, who teaches finance at Boston University’s School of Management, is a former Federal Reserve bank examiner. The views expressed are his own. –

The market has anxiously waited over two months.  With the stress test results in, we now have our work cut out for us.  Not that these findings were surprising, as the 10 banks which made the government’s “need to raise additional capital now” list are the usual suspects, such as Bank of America (BofA), Citigroup, Wells Fargo, SunTrust, Fifth Third, KeyCorp, and Capital One.  They were problem banks before the tests and they continue to be.  But this painfully drawn-out process has spawned four tangible benefits worth discussing.

First, the stress test results raise an important policy question:  Should our largest banks, those central to our economy, be allowed to take such large risks? These results paint a clearer picture of the level of risky lending practices that many of our 19 largest banks engaged in over the last decade. The government’s assessment provides added support to the need for re-regulation in this vital industry.  In the worst-case scenario, the Fed reported that these banks, which control the majority of our country’s deposits and loans, could need to raise approximately $600 billion in additional capital just to cover increased loan defaults.

Second, the stress test results show that risky bets were not just concentrated but spread over many areas, including trading and financial contracts, first and second mortgages, commercial loans, securities, and credit cards.  Having more detail on the sheer scope and size of these risky bets and potential losses provides a stronger case for the need to revamp the capital standards currently applied to banks.

It also raises the question of how the Fed and other regulators might monitor the on-going level of bank risk-taking activities.  Under the existing Tier 1 regulatory capital standard, almost all 19 banks pass with flying colors, yet the stress tests show a bleaker picture as the majority failed this equally important financial health test. The level of risk they are taking, should the economy weaken further, can not be supported by their current level of capital. Tests indicate that the 10 weaker banks need to raise approximately $75 billion to cushion against those losses.

Going forward, higher regulatory capital standards should be mandated. Banks also should be discouraged from risky lending practices, and a new Glass-Steagall type act, which was unfortunately repealed in 1999, needs to be put back on the table.  Doing so will help to separate higher risk-taking banks from lower risk-taking banks.

Third, the stress test results highlight the fragility of our banking industry and the need for bankers to rethink what are acceptable levels of risk taking.  Not long ago, the term “stodgy” was used to describe a bank or banker.  Today it’s more accurate to use “risky.”

Fundamentally, banks attempt to make money only three ways — interest loans, fee-based products and services, and proprietary trading.  Each has a varying degree of risk.  What makes one bank willing to take more risk than another is driven by management risk appetite, the perception of risk being taken, and the amount of capital to support such risk taking.  A bank with lower capital is a boat that needs to stay close to shore.  Banks with higher capital have greater ability to go out to sea, take risks, and weather a financial storm.

As expected, some bankers see an inherent conflict with large capital reserves as this can reduce their perceived returns.  While bankers have no control over the economy, they have absolute control over the level of risk that they take and the capital levels they deem as adequate.  Ideally, bankers should take these factors into account as they continue to recalibrate their risk-taking activities to match the level of capital needed.

Fourth, the government’s very public stress-testing blitzkrieg elevated general awareness of the benefits of using such risk-management tools in evaluating and planning around possible adverse financial outcomes.  And while stress testing has been used for decades by banks and regulators, the fact that banks overdosed on risk over time and not overnight suggests that such tools were infrequently used or ignored in the pursuit of seeking excessive profits. Also, more aggressive model assumptions can and should be applied. Going forward, with elevated awareness of stress testing, bankers and regulators should increase the effective use of risk-management and planning tools in managing bank-related risk.

Some banks have a greater propensity to overdose on risk, regardless of the initial size of their boats.  Many, such as BofA, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Capital One, are out to sea in a financial typhoon and now must be brought (or towed) back to safe harbor.  Stronger capital requirements, better regulatory risk oversight, and bankers with a stronger handle on fundamental risk-management principles should help reduce the chance of another banking meltdown.

– Jonathan Ford is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

Shareholders in Bank of America must be hugging themselves at their sheer audacity. They have plucked up the courage to say boo to Ken Lewis, the bank’s all-powerful chairman and chief executive.

A shareholder vote on April 29 forced Lewis to relinquish the first of those roles to an “independent chairman”. This role will now be taken by Walter Massey.

Their celebration, however, should be muted. Massey doesn’t seem very independent. He has been a director of BofA since 1998 and therefore participated in all the contentious decisions the board took during Lewis’s tenure as CEO, especially the financially crippling acquisitions of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch.

So shareholders should put Massey under pressure to demonstrate whose side he is really on. And here are two suggestions as to how they might go about this.

First, shareholders should insist that the board cut Lewis’s compensation now that he has given up part of his responsibilities. Lewis has a base salary of $1.5 million, and notched up a further $275,000 in compensation last year, largely for personal use of a corporate jet. That could easily come down by a third or more.

Second, Massey and the board should conduct an independent review of the disastrous Merrill acquisition. In particular, he should get to the bottom of the dispute between BofA and former Merrill chief John Thain about the payment of $3.6 billion in accelerated bonuses to Merrill bankers. If Lewis has abused his position or lied, he must go at once.

The point is that Massey needs to remember why he was appointed. Against the board’s wishes, shareholders have insisted on an independent chairman. Massey needs to show that he is capable of fulfilling that role.

– James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

A look at credit insurance prices for U.S. banks shows that market thinks the government’s mouth is writing checks its body can’t or won’t cash.

Despite a blistering rally in bank shares and Herculean efforts by the U.S. to build confidence in its financial sector, the price of insuring some leading banks’ debt against default has increased markedly in recent weeks.

That tells us that bond investors have serious doubts about the popular perception that the United States won’t allow systemically important institutions to fail, or in saving them in some form won’t make bond holders take substantial losses.

Since the KBW index of bank shares began a 65 percent rally on March 6 the cost of insuring Citigroup for five years via a credit default swap has risen to an annual payment of 627 basis points from 470, meaning it costs 6.27 cents to insure every dollar. Wells Fargo 5-year CDS stand at 292.5 basis points, as against 240 on March 3 and 120 at the end of December, while Bank of America’s ended last week at 355, exactly where it was on March 6 but 50 above its March 3 level.

The people buying this insurance fear if a big bank fails over the coming five years, or needs further buttressing with public money, the bill will be too large for the U.S. to bear, either politically or otherwise. That implies that there could be burden sharing by creditors, either through some sort of divvying up of the remaining assets or through forced or government orchestrated conversions of debt into equity.

OPTIONS

The options for the U.S. aren’t particularly attractive. As pointed out by Tyler Cowen in the New York Times here for the U.S. to simply fess up and say it stands behind all bank debt is to take on a gargantuan liability and to effectively neuter bond holders as a force for market and company discipline.

If the U.S. were to allow someone big to go down and make bond holders suffer too, there is a legitimate fear that creditors to the banking system would stage a disorderly wildcat strike which could bring down many healthy institutions.

It is very similar to the situation last year when the U.S. took Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into government conservatorship and did everything short of explicitly guaranteeing the two mortgage lenders’ debt. But that wasn’t enough for the markets, specifically the Chinese, who lightened up on Fannie and Freddie bonds, making mortgage rates higher than they otherwise would have been and hampering monetary policy. Ultimately the U.S. was forced to use the Federal Reserve to buy up Fannie and Freddie debt directly as a means of keeping mortgage finance flowing.

BURDEN SHARING

Remember too that these are 5-year credit default insurance contracts, so the same cast of characters might not even be in charge when the bills come due. The range of outcomes is pretty wide and so it’s no surprise people want insurance.

It is possible too that the CDS market is distorted or deluded; after all these might be the same people who are paying good money to insure against U.S. sovereign default, an event that might happen but would surely leave very few counterparties with the ability to make good claims.

To be sure, this doesn’t create funding problems for banks at this stage. They are able to sell bonds backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp’s rather hopefully named Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. If those CDS spreads don’t come down it isn’t going away any time soon. It has already been extended into 2012 and I’d expect more in due course.

So, the U.S. is likely to continue to make soothing noises to bank creditors while saying nothing too specific or legally enforceable, all the while hoping that something, anything, turns up. That might work.

COSTS

However, the current fudge imposes its own costs. Banking is a long-term business built on trust. The very existence of concerns among creditors will breed them among clients and will tend to undercut a bank’s ability to get new business and hold on to the old. Lack of trust is a vicious cycle.

So should the U.S. force creditors to pay their share if a major bank needs rescuing? My heart says people should bear responsibility for their decisions and pay the costs. But even the most puritanical capitalist should be extremely worried about what holding this particular group of vested interests responsible for their mistakes might mean for the rest of us.

Remember too that the rather successful Swedish bank bailout made creditors whole, but hit equity holders and management. I’d settle for that.

– At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. –

– James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

U.S. bank operating earnings are going to have a hard time outrunning credit losses, making the massive rally in bank shares look ready to be marked-to-market.

A series of positive statements about profitability in the early part of the year from major U.S. banks, notably Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan helped to spring a rally in the beaten down sector, as investors bet that with government assistance they could earn their way out of their troubles.

The KBW bank index has enjoyed a blistering rally, rising 51 percent from its March 8 low, though it is still down almost 40 percent from where it ended 2008.

To be comfortable with that, you have to believe two difficult things; that investors will value the earnings banks are now making as if they were sustainable and that banks won’t be swamped by credit losses and potential forced dilutions of shareholders.

“We are unconvinced that the banks have turned a corner,” FBR Capital Markets analyst Paul Miller wrote in a note to clients. “Investors who believe that the recent financial rally is here to stay expect that most banks will remain profitable.

We expect that profitability at these banks will be driven by favorable fixed-income trading revenues, as well as mortgage banking revenues.”

In some ways, balance sheets aside, it’s a pretty good time to be a bank in America. Competition has thinned out and margins should fatten commensurately.

U.S. bank profits from trading and mortgage banking are both problematic. Trading income, because it varies wildly, is hard to predict and hard to value.

If the past two years has taught us anything, it’s that paper profits can evaporate and risks can be hard to spot.

On the positive side, the fact that banks are now putting less balance sheet to work as market makers means that those banks which still operate can make considerably more on the difference between where they buy and sell securities. But given the huge uncertainty about who will be around in a year’s time, especially given the by its nature unpredictable role of government, its hard to know how much competition there will be or even how much capital banks will be forced to hold against trading activities.

LOAN COLLECTING BLUES

Mortgage banking is also going to be bigger this year. The Mortgage Bankers Association predicts refinancing will total $1.96 trillion and purchase loans increase $821 billion, which could make it the fourth-biggest year on record. This is mostly because the Fed has driven interest rates down in a bid to reflate the economy. That makes it profitable for many Americans to refinance their mortgages and is luring a much smaller number back into the house purchase market despite falling prices.

But again mortgage banking is a notoriously tough business, and though a scarcity of lending capital has driven fees up, the record of banks in the U.S. engaging in it profitably is not good.

Mortgage banking, as distinct from mortgage lending, is the business of originating loans, these days almost exclusively for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in exchange for a fee and the right to earn more fees by collecting payments in exchange for servicing the loan for the lender.

But the mortgage servicing right that a bank gets when it makes the loan is usually recognized as income based on the current value of the cash it is expected to generate over time.

That means that banks that originate lots of mortgages show huge gains in income during refinancing booms. It does not mean, however, that they necessary make money out of the deal. Servicing rights can go wrong in many ways.

First, people can stop paying their loans back. The servicer usually has to advance the first few payments if a borrower is late and doesn’t get the money back until the loan is resolved. It’s also a lot more expensive to service bad loans than regular payers, making the economics of the business particularly tough right now.

Banks can also lose out if loans are refinanced sooner than they expect, robbing them of the future fees they were counting on.

And what about credit losses? Unemployment, which drives losses on commercial loans, on mortgages and on consumer loans, will be going up for some considerable time.

For example, the baseline forecasts released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) this week were considerably more bearish than even the “more adverse” numbers being used to run the U.S. stress tests now being run on banks.

Blog Calculated Risk does a nice job running the numbers here, but the highlight has to be the third q here, but the highlight has to be the third quarter, where the OECD is predicting an economy shrinking by 1.9 percent, as against a rather miraculous recovery to minus 0.2 percent in the “tough” scenario used by Geithner et al. Similarly, the unemployment rates predicted by the severe stress test are lower than the OECD base case all the way out to the end of 2010.

So then, it won’t be the stress test that undoes many banks, it will be reality.

– At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. —