American finance

And then there were none

Sep 24th 2008 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

What the death of the investment bank means for Wall Street

Shutterstock/AP

THE radical overhaul of Britain’s financial sector in 1986 was dubbed the Big Bang. The brutal, unplanned reshaping of Wall Street might be better described as the Big Implosion. As if too ashamed to go on after the humbling of the country’s mortgage agencies and its largest insurer, the “bulge-bracket” brokerage model has collapsed in on itself. Even more humiliating for the erstwhile masters of the universe, the new force in finance is now the government.

The last remaining investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, were forced to seek sanctuary by converting into bank holding companies after the trampling of Lehman Brothers turned into a full-scale run on the industry. Though neither was particularly sickly, markets could no longer stomach their potentially lethal combination of illiquid assets and skittish wholesale liabilities.

Both will now start gathering large amounts of deposits, a more stable form of funding. Signing up strong partners should also help. Mitsubishi UFJ, a giant Japanese bank, will buy up to 20% of Morgan. Late on Tuesday September 23rd Goldman went one better, coaxing $5 billion from Warren Buffett, an investing legend. This endorsement helped Goldman to raise a further $5 billion in a share offering the next day.

Mr Buffett, no idle flatterer, describes Goldman as “exceptional”. But some doubt that it can adapt and thrive. As a bank it faces more intrusive supervision from the Federal Reserve, tougher capital requirements and restrictions on investing. Universal banks, such as Citigroup and Bank of America, long dismissed as stodgy, argue that their vast balance sheets and wide range of businesses, from cards to capital markets, give them an edge in trying times. The head of one bank suggests that the golden times enjoyed by investment banks in 2003-06 were an “aberration”, fuelled by a global liquidity glut big enough to hide a multitude of risk-taking sins.

Private-equity firms and hedge funds spy opportunity. The buyout barons got good news this week, when the Fed relaxed its rules on their ownership of banks. These investors are also going after the investment banks’ “talent”. Hedge funds will be particularly keen to get their hands on cutting-edge risk-takers who fret that new regulation will clip their wings.

Power may shift in two other directions: abroad and, to a lesser extent, to boutique investment banks. Mitsubishi is not the only foreign bank making a move. After a brief wrangle in the bankruptcy courts, Britain’s Barclays has taken over Lehman’s American operations.

But all is not lost for the former investment banks. For one thing, they may not have to cut leverage by as much as feared. Though their overall leverage ratios are high, their risk-adjusted capital ratios under the Basel 2 rules are stronger than those of most commercial banks.

Moreover, there are some advantages to becoming a bank now. Dozens of regional lenders are expected to fail in the coming months. Goldman and Morgan should thus be able to amass deposits on the cheap, and without the headaches that would accompany a merger with a big commercial bank. As two of the sharpest distressed-debt investors, they will also be looking to pick up assets from the government’s giant loan-buying entity when it gets going.

Given the acute stress in money markets, however, the accent for the time being is more on survival than grabbing opportunities. Banks continue to treat each other with suspicion in interbank loan markets.

Financial firms fear further fallout from the recent, potentially catastrophic run on money-market funds that prompted the government to step in with guarantees. “Prime” money funds, which are important buyers of corporate debt, remain under pressure and are pulling away from anything deemed risky. This is a big problem for banks, since money funds hold up to $1.3 trillion of their short-term debt. As the funds retreat, the banks will be forced to turn to longer-term (and more expensive) funding markets.

Once markets stabilise, Wall Street will start to wonder if it is better or worse off without its standalone investment banks. They may leave behind a vacuum. As broker-dealers, regulated more lightly by the Securities and Exchange Commission, they were free to put large dollops of capital to work, providing liquidity, making markets and assuming risk. As banks, they may find the Fed takes a more restrictive view.