the finance industry / wall street

Can anyone explain this to me?
http://www.businessinsider.com/bats-forced-to-retract-presidents-statement-from-cnbc-tussle-2014-4

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/books/2014/04/michael_lewis_s_flash_boys_about_high_frequency_trading_reviewed.html

More Felix Salmon (I think. I have not compared to the earlier Salmon Reuters article linked above)

But what we’re seeing, in the world of HFT, is not fraud, nor is it insider trading. Rather, HFT is a ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated mechanism for divvying up intermediation revenues between banks, exchanges, high-tech telecommunications outfits, and various algo-driven shops. Everybody is in on the game: not just the HFT guys, but also the exchanges, which optimize themselves for HFT game-playing, and the banks, which let HFTs into their dark pools, and especially the SEC, which has been cheering on the whole motley crew from the beginning. Even the big money managers are in on the act.

I liked this:
http://gawker.com/the-worst-things-are-the-things-that-everybody-knows-1556079304

^^

http://mathbabe.org/2014/04/09/lets-stop-talking-about-hft-for-a-little-while/

Nonsense. That's pretty much like saying "let's stop talking about Crimea because the real crisis is in (Syria, Palestine, ____)"

Besides, (1) I don't think we fully know the impact and/or potential impact of this stuff, and (2) in any case, the entire market has dramatically restructured itself in less than a decade, and it's something that needs to be better understood. Maybe it's not something the average person needs to care all that much about, but it's still an important topic.

Also, it seems to me like Wall Street and various trading firms feel very threatened by all this discussion. There's lots of spinning and covering and smokescreening going on. A lot of people with interests in this activity are unhappy about all the attention. That alone to me says we should look at it more closely. Goldman Sachs today announced that it's considering closing its dark pool all of a sudden. That sounds like anxious behavior to me.

nah i agree with cathy here. 'fixing' hft wouldn't fix anything about what's really wrong. to flip hurting's analogy, focusing on HFT is like complaining israeli soldiers in the occupied territories aren't getting meals with a proper nutritional balance.

"the food is terrible."

"and in such small portions!"

I remember leftish publications making an issue over interest rate swaps that wound up screwing over municipalities/pension funds. That was an smaller issue in terms of magnitude of impact, and the banks' conduct there was more justifiable and less egregious. Skimming off small amounts from every trade a public pension fund makes still aggregates to a good chunk of money that does wind up costing individual retirees.

if yr referring to swaps manipulation i think the "screwing pensions funds" angle on that was pretty fake too. depended what side of the swap they were on!

http://www.thenation.com/article/179233/why-wall-street-firms-make-terrible-landlords

Big money and cutthroat landlords have never been strangers to New York’s real estate market. But the descent of private equity firms on the city in the early years of this century was so striking that housing advocates dubbed the practice “predatory equity.” The name refers to the tactics these companies resorted to once it became clear that longtime tenants weren’t going to leave.

...

For tenants, these private equity purchases were essentially a lose-lose situation. For the deal to succeed, tenants had to be forced out. If, on the other hand, the deal failed and tenants got to stay, landlords immediately disinvested from the buildings, making the living conditions worse than ever.

^ insane. gonna re-post it in the gentrification thread

if yr referring to swaps manipulation i think the "screwing pensions funds" angle on that was pretty fake too. depended what side of the swap they were on!

― wat is teh waht (s.clover), Wednesday, April 9, 2014 12:00 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well yeah, and I also found it pretty unconvincing that taking the wrong side of an interest rate swap was the same as "getting screwed" -- they just bet the wrong way on rates. So maybe a bad example.

Also, in re that landlord thing -- as I said in the other thread, I lived in a building that had been bought by Black Rock. We were market rate tenants, but there were a lot of stabilized tenants left. There was definitely an effort to push them out, although I didn't get the impression that they were denying basic services -- mostly more doing "improvements" to the building and then seeking rent board increases. They had a very good management company running the place -- at least they were good to us, perhaps less so to the stabilized tenants.

What strikes me about that nation piece and about the practice described is how NAIVE it actually sounds like some of these investment funds are being about owning and managing rental properties. Their assumptions just sound totally unrealistic.

Ok, this pisses me off:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/09/yes-the-sec-was-colluding-with-banks-on-cdo-prosecutions/

More on that, with scathing quotes from a retiring SEC attorney
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-08/sec-goldman-lawyer-says-agency-too-timid-on-wall-street-misdeeds

The SEC has become “an agency that polices the broken windows on the street level and rarely goes to the penthouse floors,” Kidney said, according to a copy of his remarks obtained by Bloomberg News. “On the rare occasions when enforcement does go to the penthouse, good manners are paramount. Tough enforcement, risky enforcement, is subject to extensive negotiation and weakening.”

motherfuckers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/loosening-the-rules-on-insider-trading.html?emc=edit_th_20140425&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=31119931&_r=0

US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals seems inclined to change the rules on insider trading in a way that will make it easier for professional traders to escape liability.

The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations of financial institutions that could result in action in the coming weeks and months, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a video, adding that no company was "too big to jail."

The comments, made in a video posted on the Justice Department's website on Monday, came as federal prosecutors push two banks, BNP Paribas SA and Credit Suisse AG , to plead guilty to criminal charges to resolve investigations into sanctions and tax violations, respectively, according to people familiar with the probes.

While Holder did not name any banks, he said he is personally monitoring the ongoing investigations into financial institutions and is "resolved to seeing them through."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/usa-banks-holder-idUSL2N0NR0NA20140505

we don't believe you you need more people

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/loosening-the-rules-on-insider-trading.html?emc=edit_th_20140425&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=31119931&_r=0

US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals seems inclined to change the rules on insider trading in a way that will make it easier for professional traders to escape liability.

― curmudgeon, Friday, April 25, 2014 8:13 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fwiw, I think insider trading is probably the least terrible illegal thing that goes on on wall street

http://bostonreview.net/forum/suzanne-berger-how-finance-gutted-manufacturing

That author is making some awfully broad claims based on some very narrow examples, and I would want to see some more data on that.

everyone get ready to get fucked again

Michael S. Barr, a law professor at the University of Michigan who was an assistant Treasury secretary when the financial crisis was at its worst, is working on a book titled “Five Ways the Financial System Will Fail Next Time.”

The first of them, he says, is “amnesia, willful and otherwise,” regarding the causes and consequences of the crisis.

Let’s hope the others are not here yet. Amnesia was on full view this week when the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on “the dangers” of financial regulation. Mr. Barr, who helped write the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, was the sole witness who thought it made sense for regulators to study the asset management and insurance industries.

In his opening statement, the chairman of the committee, Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, proclaimed “it is almost inconceivable that an asset manager’s failure could cause systemic risk.” He also saw no danger to the system from insurance companies, which are “heavily regulated at the state level.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/business/the-financial-crisis-already-forgotten.html

x-post- finally skimmed that Boston review piece.

Over the first decade of the twenty-first century, about 5.8 million U.S. manufacturing jobs disappeared. The most frequent explanations for this decline are productivity gains and increased trade with low-wage economies. Both of these factors have been important, but they explain far less of the picture than is usually claimed.

Since the 1980s, financial market pressures have driven companies to hive off activities that sustained manufacturing.

As someone who has been following wall street's rush into the rental housing market, I found this story interesting:

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-536567/
Housing Investors Settle Into a Holding Pattern
Housing investors are retrenching by becoming landlords.
Investors Turn Focus to Generating Steady Income From Tenants
With bargains less plentiful, large housing investors are slowing property purchases and turning their focus to generating steady income from tenants.

By Robbie Whelan, Conor Dougherty

After a buying binge that helped drive the housing recovery, big investors are being forced to rethink the home-rental business.

With bargains less plentiful, executives are slowing property purchases and turning their focus to generating steady income from tenants.

A spike in home prices over the past two years was quicker and more striking than many expected, squeezing returns and raising concerns about the industry’s growth prospects.

Small investors long have bought and sold homes. But two years ago when companies such as private-equity giant Blackstone Group LP got into the business, backers said it could emerge as an asset class rivaling publicly owned apartment-rental companies, which own over 600,000 units and have a stock-market value of $88 billion.

The companies jumped into distressed markets, buying foreclosed properties and other homes at depressed prices with plans to fix them up, rent them and eventually sell at a profit. But buyers have slowed their pace after acquiring roughly 140,000 homes worth about $20 billion.

The reason: the unexpectedly sharp recovery in the price of homes over the past two years. In housing markets hardest hit by the bust—places like Phoenix, Las Vegas and much of Southern California—prices have risen as much as 55% off their postcrash lows. Nationally, prices are up 11.4% in the past two years, according to Zillow Inc.

“The distressed wave has largely passed,” said Jonathan Gray, head of real estate for New York-based Blackstone, which has spent $8.6 billion on some 45,000 homes and is the biggest player in the sector.

At the peak of its buying in July 2013, Blackstone was spending about $140 million a week on homes; now it is spending roughly $30 million to $40 million. “We didn’t anticipate prices going up 20% a year,” Mr. Gray said.

Rising prices have forced many investors to accept lower returns than they originally had projected in certain markets, or to buy homes in new cities where the price appreciation has been less rapid. Two years ago, investors could buy in Sunbelt markets such as Phoenix and Las Vegas for gross yields that were in the 15% range, according to Green Street Advisors. That has fallen to around 10%, often lower.

Many investors have decided to hold onto homes for longer than they originally expected because a larger proportion of investor returns is coming from rent instead of the home’s rising value.

“The initial investment thesis was to invest in these homes, make a nice return on the way, and be positioned to sell them for a nice profit,” said Gary Beasley, co-CEO of Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, one of four public companies in the business. “As we got into it in the first year or two, it became clear that it might be more valuable to hold onto these homes in the long term, and really treat them like a scattered-site apartment building.”

A recent Morgan Stanley report found that buy-to-rent investors have bought about $400 million worth of homes a month in the first few months of 2014, down from about $520 million a month last year.

Investor demand has cooled for stock in the four rental-home companies that went public to fund their expansion. Only American Homes 4 Rent has a stock trading above its IPO price.

Paul Puryear, director of real-estate research for Raymond James & Associates, said investors have been cool to the stocks in part because home-price growth has leveled off, and because the industry still hasn’t grown to a critical mass. “There are too many skeptics in the market,” he said.

Industry executives say there is plenty of money to be made from renting. They say more households became renters after the downturn because of the high rate of foreclosure and the inability or unwillingness of many to buy.

Indeed, apartment rents have been steadily rising for 17 quarters, according to real-estate data firm Reis Inc. They are now 11% higher than they were in late 2009 when they hit their postcrash low, Reis says.

Irvine, Calif.-based American Property Group’s search for yield in the Midwest is paying off, according to its CEO, Saman Shams. Recent acquisitions include a three-bedroom house with a big front yard on North Cherry Lake Lane in Indianapolis. About a month ago, the company paid $67,000 for the home and is spending $15,000 on renovations.

The plan is to rent the house for $1,150 a month. After costs, this will produce just under $10,000 in net income, or an annual net yield of 11.2%, much higher than the 5% to 7% net yields most investors are getting in other markets. “We’re holding these homes for the long term,” Mr. Shams said.

Analysts say the growth of the industry will depend in large part on whether investors can continue to get the better of traditional buyers. Investors have had an advantage in many markets because they have been able to pay cash and close quickly.

But that could change if the economy improves and mortgages get easier to obtain. Individuals may be able to outbid investors because they can get lower interest rates and aren’t as concerned about rate of return.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/appeals-court-overturns-decision-to-reject-s-e-c-citigroup-settlement/?hp

Ugh, and that's from a 2nd Cir. panel made up of a Clinton nominee and 2 Obama nominees.

I like District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff based on that above link

yeah that opinion was a big deal when it came out.

It's still getting talked about (and criticized)

The banks are all paying with other people’s money.” And a $285 million fine for a bank the size of Citigroup, he noted, is so small that it barely qualifies as a cost of doing business.
John C. Coffee Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School, called the ruling a “perfunctory” opinion and said it was a mystery to him why it took the court more than a year to write it. “An average law clerk could have drafted it in two days,” he said.

To my surprise, even prominent corporate defense lawyers who said they felt that Judge Rakoff had gone too far told me this week that they were troubled by the appeals court’s reasoning and its implications. (They didn’t want to be identified, since they litigate before the Second Circuit.)
So, with these comments in mind, I decided to don some imaginary judicial robes and write a dissent — the opinion that, in my view, the Second Circuit should have issued. (I’ve omitted all citations and footnotes, leaving those to my equally imaginary law clerks.)
...

As a matter of simple logic, Judge Rakoff’s position would seem to be unassailable. How can anyone decide a punishment is fair without knowing anything about what occurred?
That’s not to say that judges shouldn’t pay deference to the decision of the parties to settle and the terms they have agreed upon. The parties should have wide latitude to settle cases as they see fit. Courts should defer to the agencies they oversee, and shouldn’t substitute their own judgments for the agencies’. Nothing is inherently wrong with allowing defendants to settle while neither admitting nor denying the accusations, although that should never be used merely as an excuse to avoid trial and might be used too often. I note that the S.E.C. itself has since said it will try to curtail the practice in appropriate cases.
But neither should judges, as Judge Rakoff’s lawyer put it, be reduced to “potted plants.” To approve a settlement, judges need some facts. This court doesn’t have to decide how many are enough; that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. But I do note that in this instance, relatively few seem to be in dispute. The offering document prepared by Citigroup, which is at the center of the case, is a matter of record. It would seem relatively easy for Citigroup and the S.E.C. to stipulate to a set of facts sufficient to satisfy Judge Rakoff, especially since both seem eager to put this matter behind them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/business/rethinking-courts-reversal-of-sec-challenger.html?emc=edit_th_20140614&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=31119931&_r=0

Mr. Zucman estimates -- conservatively, in his view -- that $7.6 trillion -- 8 percent of the world's personal financial wealth -- is stashed in tax havens. If all of this illegally hidden money were properly recorded and taxed, global tax revenues would grow by more than $200 billion a year, he believes. And these numbers do not include much larger corporate tax avoidance, which usually follows the letter but hardly the spirit of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/opinion/a-piketty-proteges-theory-on-tax-havens.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/06/19-2

deregulation forever everywhere article

WikiLeaked Doc Reveals Wall Street Plan for Global Financial Deregulation

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/barclays-not-smart

the correct reading of the chart is: "We have software that allows us to produce this chart."

Latest This American Life is pretty much essential listening.

heard that shit this weekend, finally this american life making me mad for other reasons than usual

I found myself really upset at what sniveling, spineless wimps the people who work for the NYFed sound like. And I slightly fell in love with Carmen Segarra.

Latest This American Life is pretty much essential listening.

I caught most of this while cooking supper over the weekend. I agree entirely. Was enraged by the jaw-dropping timidity of "Let's send Goldman Sachs a scolding letter; worst case is they ignore it." And the subsequent self-congratulation of "we fussed at them pretty good".

Very weird to me how Wells Fargo can get fined $185 million for opening fake bank accounts and issuing fake credit cards and the stock price basically doesn't budge. I realize that the $185 million itself is not a lot in the grand scheme of their earnings, but I would think the fake accounts part would matter. Maybe it's balanced out by their firing of 5300 employees -- wall street loves layoffs!

vxx (etf based on volatility index) is shooting up today. Wonder if we're seeing the beginnings of a big fall selloff.

Yesterday’s Senate Banking Committee hearing on Wells Fargo should have ended with CEO John Stumpf hauled off in handcuffs. In a little over two hours, Stumpf revealed enough information, combined with what was already known in public records and filings, to make a powerful case for securities fraud. Specifically, that he touted fraudulent sales figures to investors as evidence of the bank’s growth, boosting the stock price and personally benefiting by $200 million. Worst of all, Stumpf used low-paid workers as the raw materials for this scheme, and as the scapegoats when it unraveled....

If the SEC and the Justice Department don’t get involved here, they might as well not even exist. CFPB’s Cordray and OCC’s Thomas Curry wouldn’t say whether they issued criminal referrals to law enforcement in this case, though Cordray hinted at it. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, if she wants to emerge from wherever she’s been hiding on this issue, has enough information to bring cases.

Will President Barack Obama’s administration end its tenure as it began, by refusing to prosecute systemic fraud in the financial markets? That’s the unavoidable conclusion so far.

https://newrepublic.com/article/136977/obama-administration-must-prosecute-wells-fargo

saw some of Elizabeth Warren's leveling of Stumpf on CNN yesterday, kinda made me want to cheer at my cubicle in the big bank I work for

Obama's doing $34,000 a plate fundraising dinners and then imploring money to get out of politics a day later. Sure, it's good theater to watch Warren put him on the hotspot but she'd never publicly go after the person who could actually launch an investigation: Lynch has always been a stooge.

Wells Fargo has multiple ex-cabinet members on its Board. Get politics out of money is more like it.

the amount of money involved in this huge fraud.... 2.6 million dollars.

Does that include the lost wages for all of the people WFB threw under the bus?

5300 people * $50k per annum is $250MM.