Gary Cohn Backs Reinstating Glass-Steagal, Breaking Up Big Banks

Tyler Durden's picture

In an unexpected statement made by the former COO of Goldman Sachs and current director of Trump's National Economic Council, Gary Cohn told a private meeting with lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday evening that he could support legislation breaking up the largest U.S. banks - a development that could provide support to congressional efforts to reinstate the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law - and impact if not so much his former employer, Goldman Sachs, whose depository business is relatively modest, then certainly the balance sheets of some of Goldman's biggest competitors including JPM and BofA.

According to Bloomberg, Cohn said he generally favors banking going back to how it was "when firms like Goldman focused on trading and underwriting securities, and companies such as Citigroup Inc. primarily issued loans."

What Cohn may not have mentioned is that with rates as low as they are, issuing loans - i.e., profiting from the Net Interest Margin spread - remains far less profitable than trading and underwriting securities in a world in which virtually every "developed world" central banker is either directly spawned from Goldman, or is advised by an ex-Goldman employee,

The remarks surprised some senators and congressional aides who attended the Wednesday meeting, as they didn’t expect a former top Wall Street executive to speak favorably of proposals that would force banks to dramatically rethink how they do business.

 

Yet Cohn’s comments echo what Trump and Republican lawmakers have previously said about wanting to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that kept bricks-and-mortar lending separate from investment banking for more than six decades.

As Bloomberg further notes, Wednesday’s Capitol Hill meeting with Cohn was arranged by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, and included lawmakers from both political parties and their staffs. The discussion covered a wide range of topics, including financial regulations and overhauling the tax code, the people said.

The WSJ adds that Cohn was asked by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) whether the administration planned to carry out a promise included in the Republican 2016 platform—and made by the Trump campaign—to restore the law separating traditional commercial banking from Wall Street investment banking. The law was repealed in 1999. Cohn expressed an openness to working with Warren on the issue, and said he could support a simple policy completely separating the two businesses, these people said.

There are various ideas for restoring some form of Glass-Steagall, running the gamut from splitting apart firms completely to separating their various operations under an umbrella holding company.

 

While Cohn’s comments are consistent with other statements by Trump administration officials, it isn’t clear how much support there is for the idea among Republicans more broadly. Warren has in the past introduced a bill she called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. In the last Congress, it received one Republican co-sponsor. Additionally, while Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has also said the administration is open to implementing some version of President Donald Trump’s campaign promise. But in his Jan. 17 confirmation hearing, he expressed concern that “separating out banks and investment banks right now under Glass-Steagall would have very big implications to the liquidity in the capital markets and banks being able to perform necessary lending.”

While the Trump team has endorsed the Glass-Steagall idea, it hasn’t come forward with its own proposal. Meanwhile, Treasury officials are meeting with financial-industry officials to discuss ways to roll back rules adopted under the Obama administration. They are due to make recommendations to the White House in early June.

Some observers said they didn’t view Mr. Cohn’s comments as a threat. “We continue to believe that a return of some form of Glass-Steagall remains more of a headline risk rather than a real policy risk and we think the odds are against the reinstatement of the law,” Brian Gardner, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said in a note to clients Thursday.

 

“I don’t think we’re concerned,” said one banker at a large firm. The bank is “pleased with the direction” of Mr. Trump’s administration and its executives aren’t racing to change strategy or make a big new lobbying push. “It’s the same day as it was yesterday,” this person said. “It’s not a time to go crazy.”

 

Tim Pawlenty, president of the Financial Services Roundtable trade group, said Thursday: “Large financial institutions play a role in the American economy other institutions are not able to fill. We are working with Congress and the administration on a common-sense approach to financial regulation modernization and look forward to more progress.”

Still, while Cohn's statement may be simply posturing, some see Cohn's support as notable: “he was the most likely obstacle within the Trump White House” to restoring Glass-Steagall, said Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with Cowen & Co., in a note to clients. “With him supporting Glass-Steagall’s restoration, there is no one in the inner circle left to fight it.”

Mr. Seiberg said banks may be underestimating the threat: “At some point the market is going to have to accept that the Trump administration is serious about restoring the Glass-Steagall separation between commercial and investment banking.”

As a reminder, Glass-Steagall was adopted in the 1930s as a way to keep securities businesses separate from taxpayer-insured banks. The separation between lending and investment banking slowly eroded in the latter part of the 20th century, as banks won regulatory exceptions to diversify their businesses. Since Congress repealed the law in 1999 under Bill Clinton, some liberals have pushed for reinstating it, "calling such a move a simple way to make the economy more stable by removing a taxpayer backstop from risky activities. Proponents of bringing back the law also say it would diminish the size and political influence of large Wall Street banks."

The 2010 Dodd-Frank regulatory-overhaul law took a half-step toward Glass-Steagall when it mandated the Volcker rule, which bars banks from certain activities unless they are trading on behalf of their customers. Many banks have since closed so-called proprietary trading desks.

Ultimately, even with Cohn allegedly behind the push repeal, the Glass-Steagall idea hasn’t gained broad support yet, even among Democrats. As the WSJ concludes, former Federal Reserve Gov. Daniel Tarullo, the Fed regulatory guru who stepped down Wednesday, was asked about Glass-Steagall earlier this week. He pointed out that in 2008, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers—two investment banks without traditional lending businesses—caused significant financial stress.

“Just by separating things doesn’t mean people stay out of trouble,” he said, adding that there would be costs to forcing banks to separate and lose the potential business advantages of combining their operations. “If you are going to have those costs and still have financial stability problems…then maybe we are not getting much after all.”

Unfortunately he may be right: the current financial environment is one in which the concern is not so much separating securities businesses from taxpayer-insured operations, as separating the $14 trillion in global liquidity sloshing around courtesy of central banks, from the rest of "organic" liquidity. It is that particular separation that will be a far bigger headache in the coming years than even reinstating Glass-Steagal.

* * *

Finally, while the likelihood of a new Glass-Steagall is low, the financial industry is already preparing for a worst case scenario, and firms such as Credit Sights are warning that a return of the Depression-era law would hurt banks.

In a note from CreditSights' Pri de Silva, he writes that while some politicians and regulators, including Donald Trump, have been calling for a new Glass-Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, only FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig has put forward a detailed proposal; "implementing it could hurt global financial markets and financial stability."

  • Sees severely harming credit profiles of the big 6 banks (BofA, Citigroup, Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo), bondholders, trading counterparties and other bank creditors of these banks, U.S. banks’ global competitive advantage, and liquidity in bond, repo markets
  • Could also curtail credit creation due to constraints placed on banks/brokers, steep capital requirements, which in turn would become headwind for economic growth and "the smooth functioning" of financial markets
  • If broker-¬dealers’ ability to make markets is constrained, ability to act as shock absorbers would be pruned, spikes in volatility may increase
  • Notes potential lack of clarity about parent-¬level debt (issued for TLAC)
  • Notes proposal calls for eliminating or watering down many of the "prudent safeguards" implemented since the credit crisis, including CCAR, DFAST stress tests, and replacing them with 10% tangible equity ratio that doesn’t distinguish between a subprime mortgage or a leveraged loan and a U.S. government obligation

In short, while it was the post-Glass Steagall world that led to the 2008 financial crisis, Wall Street has already fallen back to its traditional defense mechanism: threatening that far greater doom and gloom lie in story if the Trump administration does the one thing that may actually protect taxpayers. As a result, with Wall Street effectively running the current administration, we doubt the probability of a Glass Steagall reinstatement is even worth talking about.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AllTimeWhys's picture

I'd love to see the dems disagree with this one. Liberal heads explode when those they hate bring up what they preach  (but never actually try to accomplish).

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

Of course Goldman would go back to being an investment bank, until they need another bailout, and everyone else, essentially, would stay as retail banks.

Nice way to eliminate the competition.

froze25's picture

Now this was unexpected. Has this ex-Goldmanite gone Rouge?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

Didn't your read my comment above yours?

This would be very good for Goldman.

Nonetheless, I do hope that they reinstate Glass-Steagall and Mark-to-Market, but I certainly would not bet on it.

JRobby's picture

Whack - BOOM!!!!

"You're number one on the death list Winger, I mean Cohen!"

ParkAveFlasher's picture

A lot of swinging for the political fences.

cheka's picture

angling for a family tragedy...watch the headlines for that

winged's picture

He backs it. But nothing will happen. Just paying lip service to appease the sheeple.

Luc X. Ifer's picture

Divide & conquer. Maybe he hopes the split to happen fast enough ahead of the collapse so there would be no more a legal entity to be prosecuted.

Just a diversion as a strategy to avoid the legal consequences and deflect the public fury & outcry.

 

funthea's picture

Funny, the article didn't mention that the G/S Act was repealed by none other than Bill Clinton. While true it was brought to the fore by two Republicans, by the time it went through committee, it had overwhelming bypartisan support. Bill Clinton could have vetoed it and it could have still gone through with a majority 2/3 vote. But alas, Bill Clinton wanted to own it, and so he did, and so he does... Fucker!

JRobby's picture

Ummmm............It's all the same team

Incumbent Bloodbath - November 2018 or give them the remains of the Republic.

Vageling's picture

Have you read the article? It actually mentions that crook! 

BennyBoy's picture

 

A Goldman goon wants Glass Steagall because it harms Goldmans competitors.

I'm all for GS.

And for jailing Blanfein.

 

Jim in MN's picture

I dunno.  I've been saying that Trump wants to leave the banking and finance issues for a later date.  However, he may have had serious talks with these chuckleheads along the lines of "I'll leave you alone and even put you in charge, for now--but there needs to be a serious rethink in terms of what you think we should do, for America, in your area."

To me this dovetails with the otherwise inexplicable comments from Jamie Dimon, what was it yesterday?   The list of critical problems that America faces according to the eternal Mr. Optimist and JPM chief.

Maybe they are all on notice, along with the generals......your turn, get it right.  Because after this, what's next?  Nothing good that's for goddamn sure.

Not trying to advocate for blind faith, here, but something odd is going on.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-04/jamie-dimon-warns-something-wro...

 

 

knukles's picture

Spot on.  Eliminate the competition through devious means then capitalize for the Partner's Accounts.
Rather clear, no?
Goldman's one of the last free standing IB's. 

I knew you knew how to spell MOnOpOly

cheech_wizard's picture

I know, it's a medical condition known as the dyslexic fingering of keyboards.

Now pay attention, this is why you always type Pron and still get lists of x-rated websites (namely because they knew what you were really after in the first place). This does, however, leave your face a slightly rouge color out of embarrassment.

 

CPL's picture

No, he's testing the waters and is about to discover his opinion carries no weight.  Just like the federal reserve's word carries no weight.  Just like the president's word carries no weight.  They signed off on the system being acceptable in 2011 before they did something very stupid and now they are going to learn how wrong they all are.  How horribly and deadly wrong they are all.  How human they actually are.

The fact is none of you get a say in this process anymore.  That's what is going to be highlighted.  DOW 36000 is the dumb idea that is going to happen because they 'wished' for it.  They are the dumbest motherfuckers to have ever graced the universe and no one is going to stop that level of stupid from them ending themselves.  I will see the world's most powerful and richest eating cat food in desperation to merely survive, I will see their grand children suck dick for money to pay for their meth habits.

divingengineer's picture

If Goldman wants it, there must be a back-end to it for them. 

Squid Viscous's picture

of course, they have fed.gov on speed dial,

please press #1 for more free money, #2  to change the banking laws, #3 for a directory of congress critters to bribe, or if you need immediate assistance, please wait to be patched through directly to Mr McConnel and Mr. Ryan

JRobby's picture

But others can follow as well?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

Not really, based on their sources of revenue.

No way Dimon gives up his book of retail business.

He and Lloyd have probably already agreed to divide up the universe, instead of fighting over it.

JPM gets Main Street, and GS gets Wall Street.

JRobby's picture

Good stuff!

I can't see everyone abandoning investment banking though. And Goldman all by itself?

Yog Soggoth's picture

Initially Goldman would prosper, but if the economy were to tank? No Bailout! Money is safe in regular banks though. I say let the gamblers bet. Even if they lose the money just changes hands and lesson learned.

MFL5591's picture

Break them up after you get all the money stolen back from the people like Cohen.

Harry Vederchi's picture

End big government.

Sound money makes big goverrnment impossible.

Big government (esp. entitlements) is why our money is unsound.

You can't end the Fed unless you first end big government.

 

Honest Sam's picture

The FED IS the Big Government you want to end. They own it, control it, profit from it immensely, it's rigged. 

No real gambler makes a bet with a risk that he will lose.  They only bet when they cannot lose. 

Ending the FED and ALL Central banks, takes the Rothschilds out of the equation and how likely is that to happen??

Not at all. That's the way to bet. 

chunga's picture

I don't believe a word of it.

BullyBearish's picture

Just destroy goldmansux first, then get to the rest...

SomethingSomethingDarkSide's picture

Have we fallen through The Looking Glass or what?

Another spot of tea, you crazy Mad Hatter bastard!

SgtShaftoe's picture

And a very happy unbirthday to you! Pretty much. All these people are completely insane. Though, this is likely a bit of obfuscation to keep the people confused.

If Trump goes to Syria with more troops, we'll know.

Falconsixone's picture

Hell yeah. They got their money. Let's get this turd floating and back working for us.

Smedley's picture

They already got EVERYTHING they wanted, who needs big banks anymore?????

;)

Paid for politicians...check

US power in the ME...check

Wealthy beyond belief....check

Etc, etc....

 Hint: the Parasite abandons the Host in the end!!!

1.21 jigawatts's picture

"Trust me, Goyim."

davinci7_gis's picture

If the banks aren't allowed to invest in the market directly, the market will crash.  They can't turn the ship around now.

mtanimal's picture

"posturing" is an understatement.

Harry Vederchi's picture

Financial regulation is vain.

We need sound currency and norms competition.

Big government requires unsound currency and monopoly of norms.

Government is the problem.

 

rf80412's picture

May the most profitable norm win!

MEFOBILLS's picture

Government is the problem

 

The founders wanted sound money.  That was usurped in 1913 by the PRIVATE federal reserve.

It is private military contractors that want war.  It is financiers that want war.  It is corporate raiders that want land.  See Smedley Butler if you think otherwise.

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

The U.S. regulators are revolving door from where?  Wait for it ... Wait for it...  The very industry they regulate!

Cause and effect matter.  Stop pointing to government, when in fact it is not a government of the people's will, but is a government of interests, especially money power interests.  The money power interests are PRIVATE. 

TeethVillage88s's picture

MEFOBILLS, Gary Cohn, Government, Goldman Sachs...

Why don't we admit the USA became an Empire because UK, European Banks, Rochefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs all wanted USA to take up the Great Britain Torch, for the Queen as it were figuratively, for Great Banks Literally.

Chris88's picture

I wonder how private an accomodating fiscal instrument, with a government granted monopoly, with the same appointment process in SCOTUS, is.  "Private Fed" is something epoused only by retards who have spent too much time reading that dog shit Jekyll Island book instead of working in the real world - a favorite of socialist apologists everywhere.

Yars Revenge's picture

If he's serious, I agree completely.

Big "IF" though

earleflorida's picture

finally, some common sense...

rejected's picture

Not really common any more,,, is it?

Honest Sam's picture

Don't you believe it.  There is the Holmesian solution aborning:  the one about not hearing the dog bark.