Quantcast
BANKTHINK
DISCUSSION

Do Big Banks Need to Fear a Breakup?

MAR 14, 2013 2:45pm ET
Print
Email
Reprints
(7) Comments

Economist Simon Johnson is out with new Economix column positing that big banks should get ready for a break up.

 "There has been an outbreak of clear thinking among officials and politicians who increasingly agree that too-big-to-fail is not a good arrangement for the financial sector,” Johnson writes. He goes on to cite the recent opposition voiced by Sens. Sherrod Brown, David Vitter and Elizabeth Warren as well as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s surprising admission regarding "too big jail” among the evidence "the executives who live well on subsidies at big banks should be very afraid."

Political and public outcry against "too big fail" has certainly grown in the last few months.  As American Banker pointed out, there was a groundswell of populist anger against the megabanks back in February with comedian Stephen Colbert and, later, news and gossip sheet Gawker among the non-politicians arguing little had been done to quell the systemic threat a big bank failure poses to the global economy.

 "There's momentum, for sure," public relations consultant Harvey Radin notes in a recent BankThink post that argues big banks should voluntarily break themselves up to save their public image. 

Zions Bank CEO Harris Simmons echoed the concern when he stated the country's biggest banks are "one major misstep" away from being broken up at American Banker's annual Best Practices in Retail Banking Symposium.

"Right now it's a parlor game. … Whether this gets enough momentum, who knows, but I think we have about one more major problem in large banks, and it's probably a done deal," Simmons told the audience.  

But these stern warnings may premature (or in Johnson's case wishful thinking, given that he's expressed ample support for breaking the megabanks up before). There is a big divide between lawmakers giving regulators a tongue-lashing on "too big to jail" and getting a bill on size limits for financial firms through both the House and the Senate.

"If we cannot eliminate Fannie and Freddie, two of the most direct government subsidy vehicles, how can we tackle the big banks?" one commenter wrote on an earlier Johnson column.

And, perhaps as prevailing criticism of Dodd-Frank reform illustrates, coming up with a viable solution to the problem is far from simple.

"Potential influence on economy and borrowing costs needs [to be] part of #TBTF breakup talk," Mayra Rodríguez Valladares, managing principal at MRV Associates and BankThink columnist, tweeted in response to Johnson's column.

Has the political tide turned against the big banks enough for Congress to impose limits on their size? Do large financial institutions need to fear a break up? Why or Why not?  Let us know in the comments below.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(7) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

 

 
The Six Must-Read Stories of Regulation and Reform

It was very busy in Washington last week, but the item that produced the most news in the banking world wasn't even on the radar. Attorney General Eric Holder was supposed to talk about drones, but he also made a surprising admission with far-reaching consequences. Following are the most essential stories of Regulation and Reform.

(Image: Thinkstock)

Comments (7)
The Too Big To Behave Banks shouldn't fear being forced to break up. They started out as smaller institutions which were sufficiently successful to facilitate growth. Over the last decade, they have tried every unfair, deceptive, abusive and illicit activity they could think of to be forced back to that size. This includes driving the global financial system to the brink of collapse and frightening the US Attorney General away from prosecuting obvious crimes.
Posted by jim_wells | Thursday, March 14 2013 at 3:53PM ET
The largest banks could easily be replaced by money funds and other vehicles. They are primarily involved in commercial trading that is not a needed role for traditional banking. Less than 10% of Bank of America's assets come from traditional banking deposits. Smaller banks could easily do cooperative lending should there be a demand for that type of bank activity. The risk to the economy becomes too great when banks become too large.
Posted by John C | Thursday, March 14 2013 at 3:54PM ET
Should it be done? Take a look at the report on JPMorgan's list of settlements prepared by Josh Rosner of GrahamFisher embedded here: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/david-dayen-out-of-control-new-report-exposes-jpmorgan-chase-as-mostly-a-criminal-enterprise.html In the face of that proof that even the supposedly marvelous JPM is out of control, of course these monsters should be broken up.

Will it be done? Ask yourself how much JPM and the other megabanks have to spend on lobbying and campaign contributions to protect their existence and the perks of the C-Suite. You don't have to be a cynic to assume that they will go untouched.
Posted by masaccio | Thursday, March 14 2013 at 3:55PM ET
Monopoly is the word here. Just as dominating an industry causes troubles, being "too big to fail" has a keystone meaning, simply a very large role. One way to look at all this will be to ask if we still believe in fighting monopolies, for the good of capitalism in the long run.
Posted by jimedyer | Thursday, March 14 2013 at 3:55PM ET
One should consider the cost of break up; second, do the customers need such break up? Is it a regulatory issue or the corporate issue? For the sin of the regulator, why should the customers and banks be asked to pay? 'Too big to fail' banks story clearly proved in the backdrop of recession it was a regulatory failure. The third important issue is whether the large sized banks pass on the costs gained from high volumes to the customers or shareholders? There is no evidence so far that the economies of scale resulted in greater benefit to the customers. One-size fits all is no solution for any issue. Each big sized bank has to address these issues and take a call on the size.
Look at the stress test results announced yesterday. Who were the inactive? It is the largest size banks - two of them: JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. If the optimum size is beneficial for customers and shareholders why not opt for them?
Posted by yerram | Thursday, March 14 2013 at 9:55PM ET
Add Your Comments:
You must be registered to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

Email Newsletters

Get the Daily Briefing and the Morning Update when you sign up for a free trial.

TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
Marketplace
Fiserv is a leading global provider of information management and electronic commerce systems for the financial services industry.
Learn More
Informa Research Services is the premier provider of competitive intelligence, mystery shopping, and compliance testing services to the financial industry.
Learn More
CSC is a leader in private-label, third-party loan servicing with 30+ years of proven experience in delivering effective, cost-effective solutions.
Learn More
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.