Why is Everyone Becoming a Bank Holding Company? It’s All About the Benjamins
This morning, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced that the bailout may be expanded to include credit card companies and auto and student loan companies. But American Express isn’t taking any chances. On Monday, AmEx became the latest business to turn itself into a bank holding company, thus making it eligible for the TARP and other emergency loan programs recently set up by the Federal Reserve.
“It makes absolute sense in the current economic environment to be in a position to be able to take advantage of the government-sponsored programs and be on equal footing with others in the industry,” AmEx spokeswoman Joanna Lambert told us after Paulson’s announcement this morning. “It’s what we believe to be the right thing to do.”
Becoming a bank means that AmEx must jump through extra regulatory hoops in exchange for further protection, which also includes federal deposit insurance, access to the Fed discount window and an array of new Fed lending facilities for banks. While the company has said that it will not change its core business strategy, it may bulk up its small banking operations, said Red Gillen, senior analyst for Celent, a financial research group. It is betting that the payout in the short term will be worth the cost.
“Right now they’re really in survival mode,” said Gillen.
The company is following in the footsteps of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, the investment banks that turned themselves into bank holding companies with the Fed’s blessing in September.
With the feds continuing to broaden the scope of the bailout, will companies still have a motivation to become banks?
“They will be thinking about it,” said Richard Sylla, professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Becoming a bank still gives companies access to a large potential pool of federal funding. “The question is, how easy will the Fed make it for them?”
“Bank holding company” has generally referred only to those companies whose primary operations were closely related to commercial banking. Including credit card companies and investment banks in that regulatory scheme may be a mistake, some observers say.
Bank holding companies are restricted in the amount of debt such a company can take on, and there are added regulations on certain kinds of risky transactions. Investment banks, especially, are accustomed to making big bets with borrowed money and keeping little capital on hand. Becoming a bank holding company means forgoing those bets.
“On principle it’s a big deal that they will be regulated as commercial banks,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “Over the longer term, I don’t know if they’ve thought it through and if the Fed has thought it through.”
It’s unclear how strictly these banking regulations will be enforced over the short term. Since the financial crisis began, the Fed has temporarily relaxed certain capital requirements for bank holding companies and eased regulation restricting the kinds of transactions they can make with their affiliates.
The Fed has said that the companies have two years to comply with the stricter regulations on bank holding companies, and it will allow extensions of a year at a time.
And some of the companies may hope that the federal regulations will apply to only the commercial banking operations of their company, and not the rest, said Baker.
So much is unclear that there is a potential for painful clarifications down the road, said Baker. “I think it would be unfortunate if you threw them a lifeline and said, ‘We’ll let you keep 90 percent of your operation out of our control.’”
Taxpayers may be unhappy to bear the risk of companies accustomed to betting the farm on strategies that may or may not pan out. And even if they do submit to the stricter regulations, can corporations that profit from taking big risks be trusted to play it straight?
“Can we be assured that they will follow the rules strictly? These are strong competitors who take advantage of loopholes” says Gary Dymski, an economics professor at the University of California, referring to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Companies may approach risk cautiously during the current economic crisis, he says. “But how is it going to be ten years from now?”
Lambert said that AmEx intended to comply with all federal requirements.
Get Updates
Our Hottest Stories
- The 182 Percent Loan: How Installment Lenders Put Borrowers in a World of Hurt
- IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups
- Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal
- Medicare Drug Program Fails to Monitor Prescribers, Putting Seniors and Disabled at Risk
- Sound, Fury and the IRS Mess
- On Victory Drive, Soldiers Defeated by Debt
- A Prosecutor, a Wrongful Conviction and a Question of Justice
- The Most Important #Muckreads on Rape in the Military
- A Prolonged Stay: The Reasons Behind the Slow Pace of Executions
- Congressmen to Hagel: Where Are the Missing War Records?
- IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups
- Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal
- The 182 Percent Loan: How Installment Lenders Put Borrowers in a World of Hurt
- How the IRS’s Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
- On Victory Drive, Soldiers Defeated by Debt
- Sound, Fury and the IRS Mess
- Medicare Drug Program Fails to Monitor Prescribers, Putting Seniors and Disabled at Risk
- Congressmen to Hagel: Where Are the Missing War Records?
- The Most Important #Muckreads on Rape in the Military
- A Prolonged Stay: The Reasons Behind the Slow Pace of Executions







2 comments
J. Michels
Nov. 13, 2008, 2:58 a.m.
If the question is whether or not we should trust the bankers to keep our interests above theirs, then isn’t the answer a bit obvious? Goldman Sachs apparently screwed Californians pretty good, and now they are getting gov’t assistance in order to further their business which produces nothing whatsoever except for a fat paycheck.
Al Gore’s plan to “Repower America” seems like a much more appropriate way to jumpstart the economy, even if it falls well short of solving all our problems. If he and our new Pres. were to embrace the hemp plant and call for an end to the miserably failed War on Drugs (talk about energy conservation!) then we might even find a way to start generating real manufacturing, renewable energy and wealth in this country again.
If not, it will be impossible to continue funding our other two wars—which of course are fueled largely by the black market and our arcane/asinine foreign policies…
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has been around for more than five years, and has already taken great strides toward educating public officials and citizens about the benefits of treating all addictions as health concerns rather than criminal activity.
It’s time for the media to play their part in forcing Congress to deal with the realities of the situation unless they too want to loose all credibility and end up in the back of the line for our friendly government handouts. (Of course I mean no offense to Pro Publica, but would like to see a future article about these intertwined topics.)
jskdn
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:28 p.m.
When their bets turn out bad, these firms are being allowed switch to a form that provides access to government help, and even then do so without having to comply for some time with the regulatory scheme that other than these newly created bank holding companies have been continually subject to. This financial crisis is a lesson in the plethora of unintended consequences that result from governments trying to intervene after the fact instead of having a set of regulations that prevent things from happening for which the market is unprepared to cope with adequately. Among the perverse choices being made is the effort to maintain housing prices that in many places don’t reasonably reflect people’s ability to pay in order to protect the financial institutions and investors who have trillion in dollars connected to the loans made on homes and to avoid the effect that monumental losses by these huge economic players could have on the functioning of the economy.
Commenting on this story is closed.