In some quarters, it is fashionable to trash Wall Street. The media keeps hammering financial executives for their large compensation packages and politicians love to go after them. In 2016, the colorful Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, and an avowed Democratic Socialist, basically gave the same speech at every rally and in every debate. In essence, he repeated the same spiel in his 2020 run for the White House. One line in Bernie’s stump speech that I heard and read so much I memorized. From memory, the lively Senator said, “Greed, fraud, dishonesty and arrogance, these are the words that best describe the reality of Wall Street today.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts also has Wall Street as a target and is far more disciplined in her comments and does a lot of digging before she launches a broadside at Wall Street. While I think she goes too far in her attacks, I must say that I was glued to C-Span when she took apart Wells Fargo executives among others at a Senate hearing a few years back. She moved methodically and relentlessly and would not accept the way that squirmy titans tried to rationalize their actions. At the same time, her solutions, to me, are way too broad. Break up the big banks, put in confiscatory taxes and lay on big regulation. Directionally, she is correct. Something is indeed wrong at times. Yet we need reform, not revolution.
Imagine if Wall Street (the financial world as we know it) did not exist. Do you like your I-phone? Apple products? Your cars? Your credit card with the huge credit limit or cash back features? Amazon Prime? Netflix? Disney Plus? How about 21st century medicine? Without it and the financial backing that Wall Street provided, I am sure that I would have been dead a few decades ago. Wall Street, by providing big time financing has allowed entrepreneurs to grow far faster. Without a strong finance industry, we might still be living in something akin to feudal or colonial times. With all its flaws, I will take 21st century America without any hesitation. We need a robust financial world that fosters innovation and new ideas and entrepreneurs. BUT, the players need to play by the rules.
I have been following this topic for 50 years. Don’t believe me? Read on, my friends. Get comfortable. This will take a few minutes.
Back in 1970-72, I was studying economics. I did not like it; I loved it. To me, the way markets moved was fascinating and still is. I was taking a course in Money and Banking and another in History of Economic Thought. It was a small school so I was able to work on a detailed paper that would apply to both courses. My topic was Swiss Banks. As I dug in to it, I was fascinated by a group of institutions known as private banks. They were not the kind of entities that would want my or perhaps your checking account. They tended to work for high net worth individuals and also, in many cases, operated as investment bankers, raising money for new companies. Names such as Pictet & Cie, Vontobel and Julius Baer topped the list. What startled me about studying them was a term in the bylaws of the private partnerships—unlimited liability. In other words, if the investment that the private bank made in an enterprise went south, the partners were literally on the hook for the entire amount of money. Even as a young pup, I understood how that they were putting their ENTIRE personal net worth up in to the private banking partnership. It was no wonder that, at the time, Swiss bankers were viewed as careful and very prudent. My profs liked the paper and gave me constant encouragement. They told me that investment banking firms in New York had the same set up—if they had big trading losses or backed a loser of a new company, the partners passed the hat and made good on it.
Over the summer, insufferable nerd that I was, I kept digging in to the topic. Reading through old copies of The Wall Street Journal, I saw that on May 26, 1969 Lufkin and Jenrette (known as DLJ), a modest sized investment banking house, had asked the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Board of Governors for permission to go public. Their argument was that by turning to the public, they would have the capital to do bigger deals. Prior to that time, the NYSE had to approve all stockholders of a member firm. It was, in essence, a club.
To the surprise of many, DLJ received permission as it appears that the Wall Street insiders recognized that for the economy to keep growing, a cash infusion would help spur expansion. When I excitedly discussed this with my mentors in September, they were, as usual, very polite but did not see it as earthshaking in terms of the industry. So, I got on with my life.
I did notice that some financial people did “eat their own cooking.” Warren Buffett allegedly has some 97% + of his net worth tied up in Berkshire Hathaway stock. A friend once told me he slept well at night owning Berkshire shares as he was casting his lot with Warren. A few boutique mutual funds insisted that their money managers had a large portion of their personal assets in the fund(s) they managed as well.
Being a business news junkie then and now, I noticed over the next 15 years that the DLJ initial public offering was not a one off. Merrill Lynch went public in 1971 while I was still an undergraduate. In 1981, Solomon Brothers merged with commodities heavyweight Phibro and then went public, followed by Bear Stearns in 1985 and Morgan Stanley the next year. I was busy with a young family and noticed it but shrugged. Finally, the most prominent firm, Goldman Sachs, bit the bullet and went public in 1999 and the super secret Lazard Freres was last to join the party in 2006. All of this got my attention and I noticed one thing. Shareholders of these famous firms received rather stingy dividends while a reading of the annual reports exposed that senior management and some young traders (stock, fixed income or commodity) were taking home multi-million dollar bonuses. It was almost as if they were still partnerships. The shareholders (the public) provided the capital but a disproportionate amount of the spoils went to the management. Far more damning was that when they had a bad year, the stock price tanked but many of the seven or eight figure bonuses continued. This was often dubbed “corporate welfare” or “socialism for the rich” as either shareholders or, as happened in 2008-2009, the taxpayers had to absorb some of the losses. This really triggered the heated comments of Senators Sanders and Warren.
Congress passed the Dodd-Frank bill to regulate Wall Street. It is an impenetrable 2300 pages. I bet that, other than a bleary eyed Liz Warren, nobody else in the US Senate read the whole thing. Smaller banking institutions are finding compliance onerous and expensive. Dodd-Frank undoubtedly had some good parts. Here is my alternative after my 50 years of observation: Go back to some form of unlimited liability for investment bank senior officers. Think about this. If a bank makes a multi-billion dollar mistake again Chagalls and Picassos would come off walls, the ranch in Montana and the ski lodge in Aspen would go on the block, the beach house in the Hamptons would change hands and god forbid, the duplex on Park Avenue would have to be sold. Bankers would get religion pretty damn quickly.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment