Archive for the ‘Financial Crisis’ Category

After the Deal: Fannie, Freddie and the Financial Crisis Aftermath

Posted by June Rhee, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday September 11, 2014 at 9:09 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Steven Davidoff Solomon, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and David T. Zaring, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

In After the Deal: Fannie, Freddie and the Financial Crisis Aftermath, we offer a solution to the problem of what to do with the profits being made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the subject of a dispute between the government, which has declared that it will keep those profits, and the shareholders of common and preferred stock left behind after the firms were quasi-nationalized, who have sought, in court, a share of them.

…continue reading: After the Deal: Fannie, Freddie and the Financial Crisis Aftermath

Rolling Back the Repo Safe Harbors

Posted by Mark Roe, Harvard Law School, on Wednesday September 10, 2014 at 9:02 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: Mark Roe is the David Berg Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he teaches bankruptcy and corporate law. This post is based on an article co-authored by Professor Roe, Ed Morrison, Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi for the District of Delaware. All three are members of the Advisory Committee on Derivatives, Financial Contracts and Safe Harbors, which is working with the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11. The article was presented at the Federal Reserve’s recent conference on Wholesale Funding Markets.

Ed Morrison, Judge Christopher Sontchi and I recently posted to SSRN our article recommending a major narrowing of the repo safe harbors, after presenting it at the Federal Reserve’s recent conference on Wholesale Funding Markets in which the Boston Fed president warned of the dangers in the repo market. Overall, we conclude that the Bankruptcy Code has aggressively and unwisely sought to regulate market liquidity and systemic risk, with the Code’s “safe harbors” from the normal bankruptcy machinery largely backfiring during the financial crisis. The sounder policy would be to limit the repo safe harbors to U.S. Treasury repos and repos of similarly liquid government securities.

…continue reading: Rolling Back the Repo Safe Harbors

Correcting Some of the Flaws in the ABS Market

Posted by Luis A. Aguilar, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on Tuesday September 9, 2014 at 9:07 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today [August 27, 2014] the Commission takes an important step to protect investors and promote capital formation, by enhancing the transparency of asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and by increasing the accountability of issuers of these securities. The securitization market is critical to our economy and can provide liquidity to nearly all the major economic sectors, including the automobile industry, the consumer credit industry, the leasing industry, and the commercial lending and credit markets.

Given the importance of this market, let’s also remember why we are here and the magnitude of the crisis in the ABS market. At the end of 2007, the ABS market consisted of more than $7 trillion of mortgage-backed securities and nearly $2.5 trillion of other outstanding ABS. However, by the fall of 2008, the securitization market had completely seized up. For example, in 2006 and 2007, new issuances of private-label residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) totaled $686 billion and $507 billion, respectively. In 2008, private-label RMBS issuance dropped to $9 billion, and flat-lined in 2009.

…continue reading: Correcting Some of the Flaws in the ABS Market

Statement on Asset-Backed Securities and Credit Rating Agencies

Posted by Mary Jo White, Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on Friday August 29, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC, available here and here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

The Commission will today [August 27, 2014] consider recommendations of the staff for adopting two very important final rules in different, but closely related, areas—asset-backed securities and credit rating agencies.

The reforms before us today will add critical protections for investors and strengthen our securities markets by targeting products, activities and practices that were at the center of the financial crisis. With these measures, investors will have powerful new tools for independently evaluating the quality of asset-backed securities and credit ratings. And ABS issuers and rating agencies will be held accountable under significant new rules governing their activities. These reforms will make a real difference to investors and to our financial markets.

We will first consider the recommendation related to asset-backed securities, and then we will consider the rules relating to credit rating agencies.

…continue reading: Statement on Asset-Backed Securities and Credit Rating Agencies

Banks, Government Bonds, and Default

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday August 19, 2014 at 9:15 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Nicola Gennaioli, Professor of Finance at Bocconi University; Alberto Martin, Research Fellow at the International Monetary Fund; and Stefano Rossi of the Finance Area at Purdue University.

Recent events in Europe have illustrated how government defaults can jeopardize domestic bank stability. Growing concerns of public insolvency since 2010 caused great stress in the European banking sector, which was loaded with Euro-area debt (Andritzky (2012)). Problems were particularly severe for banks in troubled countries, which entered the crisis holding a sizable share of their assets in their governments’ bonds: roughly 5% in Portugal and Spain, 7% in Italy and 16% in Greece (2010 EU Stress Test). As sovereign spreads rose, moreover, these banks greatly increased their exposure to the bonds of their financially distressed governments (2011 EU Stress Test), leading to even greater fragility. As The Economist put it, “Europe’s troubled banks and broke governments are in a dangerous embrace.” These events are not unique to Europe: a similar relationship between sovereign defaults and the banking system has been at play also in earlier sovereign crises (IMF (2002)).

…continue reading: Banks, Government Bonds, and Default

Embracing Sponsor Support in Money Market Fund Reform

Editor’s Note: Jill E. Fisch is Perry Golkin Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute for Law & Economics at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Money market funds (MMFs) have, since the 2008 financial crisis, been deemed part of the nefarious shadow banking industry and targeted for regulatory reform. In my paper, The Broken Buck Stops Here: Embracing Sponsor Support in Money Market Fund Reform, I critically evaluate the logic behind current reform proposals, demonstrating that none of the proposals is likely to be effective in addressing the primary source of MMF stability—redemption demands in times of economic resources that impose pressure on MMF liquidity. In addition, inherent limitations in the mechanisms for calculating the fair value of MMF assets present a practical limitation on the utility of a floating NAV. I then offer an unprecedented alternative approach—mandatory sponsor support. My proposal would require MMF sponsors to commit to supporting their funds as a condition of offering a fund with a fixed $1 NAV.

…continue reading: Embracing Sponsor Support in Money Market Fund Reform

Dodd-Frank At 4: Where Do We Go From Here?

Editor’s Note: David M. Lynn is a partner and co-chair of the Corporate Finance practice at Morrison & Foerster LLP. The following post is based on a Morrison & Foerster publication; the complete text, including appendix, is available here.

Where do we go from here? As we mark another milestone in regulatory reform with the fourth anniversary of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, it strikes us that although most studies required to be undertaken by the Act have been released and final rules have been promulgated addressing many of the most important regulatory measures, we are still living with a great deal of regulatory uncertainty and extraordinary regulatory complexity.

…continue reading: Dodd-Frank At 4: Where Do We Go From Here?

Statement on the Anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act

Posted by Mary Jo White, Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on Monday July 21, 2014 at 9:11 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s recent Public Statement, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

The fourth anniversary of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act provides an opportunity to reflect on why the Act was passed, how the SEC has used the Act to promote financial stability and protect American investors, and what remains to be completed. The financial crisis was devastating, resulting in untold losses for American households and demonstrating the need for strong and effective regulatory action to prevent any recurrence.

…continue reading: Statement on the Anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act

Economic Crisis and Share Price Unpredictability: Reasons and Implications

Posted by June Rhee, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday July 10, 2014 at 9:14 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Edward G. Fox of University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Department of Economics, Merritt B. Fox, the Michael E. Patterson Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and Ronald J. Gilson, Charles J. Meyers Professor of Law and Business at Stanford Law School.

During the recent financial crisis, there was a dramatic spike in “idiosyncratic volatility”—the volatility of individual firm share prices after adjustment for movements in the market as a whole. The average firm’s increase was a remarkable five-fold as measured by variance. This dramatic spike is not peculiar to the most recent crisis. Rather, it has occurred with each major downturn in the economy since the 1920s, as our paper shows for the first time. These spikes present a puzzle in terms of existing economic theory. They also have important implications for several areas of corporate and securities law where the capacity of securities prices to reflect available information is particularly important. Examples include the presumption of reliance, loss causation and materiality in fraud-on-the-market suits, materiality in insider trading cases, and the corporate law regulation of defenses undertaken by targets of hostile takeover attempts. The continuing centrality of these issues is underscored by this week’s decision in Halliburton Co v. Erica P. John Fund, where the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can defeat a fraud-on-the-market case class certification by showing that the alleged misstatement had no impact on price.

…continue reading: Economic Crisis and Share Price Unpredictability: Reasons and Implications

Defining Dealers and Major Participants in the Cross-Border Context

Posted by Luis A. Aguilar, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on Sunday June 29, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Dealers and major participants play a crucial role in the derivatives market, a market that has been estimated to exceed $710 trillion worldwide, of which more than $14 trillion represents transactions in security-based swaps. In the United States, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the SEC share responsibility for regulating the derivatives market. Out of the total derivatives market, the SEC is responsible for regulating security-based swaps. As evidenced in the most recent financial crisis, the unregulated derivatives market had devastating effects on our economy and U.S. investors. In response to this crisis, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act and directed both the CFTC and SEC to promulgate an effective regulatory framework to oversee the derivatives market.

…continue reading: Defining Dealers and Major Participants in the Cross-Border Context

Next Page »
 
  •  » A "Web Winner" by The Philadelphia Inquirer
  •  » A "Top Blog" by LexisNexis
  •  » A "10 out of 10" by the American Association of Law Librarians Blog
  •  » A source for "insight into the latest developments" by Directorship Magazine