Fiserv
 
Posted 07/06/2009 By Matt Stichnoth

SHEILA BAIR ENJOYING BANKING CRISIS SO MUCH SHE SEEMS TO WANT TO EXTEND IT FOREVER

So now Sheila Bair wants to require private equity investors maintain a 15% Tier 1 ratio at banks they own (vs. 8% for non-PE investors) and hold their bank investments for at least three years before selling. Wilbur Ross is not happy:

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, whose investment firm was part of the private-equity consortium that acquired failed Florida bank BankUnited, said he was surprised by the restrictions in the FDIC proposal. The requirements are "harsh and discretionary," he said.

"I think it could guarantee that there will be no more private equity coming into banks," Mr. Ross added.m [Emph. added]

Ross is being circumspect. Bair’s rules will ensure PE investors stay away in droves. It’s not clear what makes private equity investors so different from other bank investors, by the way. Not lack of banking experience: Ross, recall, partnered with John Kanas as part of the BankUnited deal. Oh, and there‘s this:

Beyond the capital requirements, the proposal would prevent certain buyers operating under "complex and functionally opaque ownership structures" to buy a failed bank, and could require investors that own other banks to provide cross-guarantees, meaning the banks should rely on each other if one needed capital.

Great! So one bad bank investment could torpedo a whole portfolio. If Sheila Bair doesn’t want any more private equity money in banking, she should just come out and say so. . . .


1:32 PM  

Sam Posted On 7/7/2009 9:05:09 AM

She did say she doesn't want PE money. She said it in the language of a regulator.

Twotenths Posted On 7/9/2009 9:21:05 AM

She also said that this requirement was her opening position in the negotiation that she anticipated. What I don't understand is why it should be a negotiation process. Is there a prudent approach, or isn't there? If there is, then let's do that. But for her to put forward a clear, reasoned requirement would demand some sort of empirical research, plus theoretical groundings, to support the plan. Hmm. This little episode points up the fact that regulators have no special expertise at measuring and controlling risk. Has anyone ever explained why a T1R of 8% was ever the "right" figure? Why not 7.3% or 9.1%? It’s disturbing to realize how many regulatory details are fundamentally arbitrary.
   Add your comment

 

 

Sam Posted On 7/7/2009 9:05:09 AM

She did say she doesn't want PE money. She said it in the language of a regulator.

Twotenths Posted On 7/9/2009 9:21:05 AM

She also said that this requirement was her opening position in the negotiation that she anticipated. What I don't understand is why it should be a negotiation process. Is there a prudent approach, or isn't there? If there is, then let's do that. But for her to put forward a clear, reasoned requirement would demand some sort of empirical research, plus theoretical groundings, to support the plan. Hmm. This little episode points up the fact that regulators have no special expertise at measuring and controlling risk. Has anyone ever explained why a T1R of 8% was ever the "right" figure? Why not 7.3% or 9.1%? It’s disturbing to realize how many regulatory details are fundamentally arbitrary.
Ad for inter-arch
Ad for Bankstocks
 

     Bankstocks.com is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on Bankstocks.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on Bankstocks.com and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any Bankstocks.com team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor Bankstocks.com has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.