The end of wall street

The day after the Federal Reserve permitted both Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS - News) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS - News) to become bank holding companies, in September 2008, The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the end of Wall Street had arrived. "[I]n a single week, the era of the independent investment bank has ended," the paper's editorial writers observed, along with many others. "Wall Street as we've known it for decades has ceased to exist."

Superficial change
While in a literal sense, the Journal was correct -- the investment banks that relied most heavily on the short-term financing of their long-term assets were indeed defunct -- the question remains just how much has really changed on Wall Street, and how different is the world of finance than it was before the momentous events of 2008? The surprising answer -- given all the hyperbolic editorializing at the time -- is that very little has changed on Wall Street in the aftermath of one of the worst financial debacles since the laws that separated commercial banking from investment banking were first implemented during the Great Depression.

True, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have fewer competitors for their services than ever before, as Bear Stearns has all but disappeared (after being bought by JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM - News)); and Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch are much altered after being absorbed by Barclays and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC - News), respectively. That is a serious change, in their favor. What were once the Big Five Wall Street firms has been reduced to two, although to be sure plenty of competition for them still exists from the so-called universal banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup (NYSE: C - News), Bank of America, Credit Suisse (NYSE: CS - News) and Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB - News).

Subsidizing the Street
The other major change -- again in their favor -- is that as bank holding companies, both Goldman and Morgan Stanley now have easy access -- on a regular basis, free of negative connotations -- to cheap, short-term funding from the Federal Reserve. After Bear Stearns failed in March 2008, the Fed for the first time opened its discount window to investment banks. But Wall Street firms that availed themselves of such borrowing worried that a stigma would attach to them, and seemed to avoid doing it. Now, they can borrow billions of dollars from the Fed at will at around 75 basis points and then turn around and lend that money right back to the U.S. Treasury (by buying Treasury bills or bonds) and pocket spreads of 200 basis points and up. In effect, American taxpayers are now subsidizing the profits of Wall Street.

So, yes, as these two examples illustrate, one could say there have been dramatic changes in the way -- what used to be -- Wall Street operates.

Yet little has really changed
But, in a larger sense, very little, if anything, has changed on Wall Street in the aftermath of the crisis. For absurdly high fees, Wall Street still provides M&A advice on deals. Wall Street still underwrites debt and equity securities for its corporate clients. Wall Street still provides brokerage services for institutional and retail clients. Wall Street still provides prime brokerage services for hedge funds, although because of the much-diminished competition, those that do -- among Goldman, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan -- can charge higher and higher fees and demand more and more margin. For all the talk of reregulation and the implementation of the so-called Volcker Rule, Wall Street can still engage in proprietary trading and make private equity investments. One thing that Wall Street no longer does is to underwrite and to sell mortgage-backed securities, although in time even that will likely resume.

The Journal also predicted that, under the Fed's oversight, neither Goldman nor Morgan Stanley would be able to use nearly as much "leverage" in their business as they had previously, which is undoubtedly true. "That in turn means less risk and almost certainly less profit and lower compensation," the paper conjectured. That's the part that has yet to come to pass. In 2009, Goldman had record profitability -- of $13.4 billion -- driven, in part, by the twin benefits -- of the lower cost of capital and fewer competitors -- the crisis sent its way. And, of course, Wall Street still pays its employees at absurdly high levels, compared to what they could possibly make doing anything else in the real world.

The sad truth
To see the genuine changes that the financial crisis has wrought, one must look beyond Wall Street, to Main Street. With a chronic 10% unemployment rate -- and as high as 18% if those who have just given up looking altogether are accounted for (as well as jobs in certain industries that are gone forever and homes that are no longer worth the amount of the mortgage on them), the burden of the financial crisis is without question being disproportionately borne by the American people; and that is without even trying to account for the huge budget deficits brought on, in part, by the Wall Street bailouts. These deficits will no doubt linger for our children and grandchildren to sop up.

The sad truth of the denouement of the financial crisis at the moment is that Wall Street is much the same as it was before; it's Main Street that may never be the same again.

Goldman Sachs Sees ‘Rather Strong’ Growth in 2010-11

The global economy will expand 4.4 percent in 2010 and 4.5 percent the following year as the world recovers from the credit crisis, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said.

“Our projections suggest that both 2010 and 2011 will be rather strong years,” a team led by Jim O’Neill, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist in London, wrote today in a report in which the bank made eight “top trade” recommendations. “The combination of better-than-expected growth and lower-than- expected inflation should be good news for financial markets.”

Among its new currency recommendations, Goldman Sachs said investors should buy the pound against the New Zealand dollar and the Polish zloty versus the yen. The bank also backed Russian equities and suggested investors should go “long” credit protection on Spain and “short” protection on Ireland.

New York-based Goldman Sachs, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, said earlier today it was ending the last four of its top trades for 2009 after “potential gains” for nine of the 11 bets, including one that the pound would strengthen against the dollar. Goldman Sachs said it had “significant losses” on a recommendation to buy the dollar against the yen, losing 9 percent.

The MSCI World Index of stocks climbed 28 percent this year as the global economic slump eased. Crude oil jumped 75 percent, gold advanced to a record $1,217.23 an ounce and the dollar slid against higher-yielding currencies such as the Australian dollar and Norwegian krone. Treasuries dropped 1.4 percent in 2009, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. indexes, after a resurgence in risk appetite.

Goldman Sachs Said to Be in Talks to Repay TARP Funds

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., once the most profitable firm on Wall Street, is talking with U.S. regulators about repaying the $10 billion it received from the government by mid-April, a person familiar with the matter said.

Goldman Sachs hasn’t formally applied to give back the money, which the New York-based company received as part of the first round of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the person said, declining to be identified because the talks are private.

Bank executives are chafing under increased scrutiny that accompanied the bailout money, as public outrage over bonuses and executive perks intensifies. The government may be reluctant to let any banks pay back the TARP money now, because it could pressure other companies that still need the cash to return it, according to Peter Sorrentino, who helps manage $13.3 billion at Huntington Asset Advisors in Cincinnati.

“The regulators do want to keep all these guys on the same page,” Sorrentino said in an interview. “It’s like a chain gang, you’ve got them all in handcuffs. If you let some of them out, then you’ve got a couple off the reservation.”

Goldman Sachs doesn’t expect to be allowed to repay the TARP money until the Treasury finishes so-called stress tests of major banks’ financial stability, the person said. Regulators said last month they expected to complete the review in April.

“We’ve indicated our desire to repay TARP capital sooner rather than later, but obviously won’t do anything without the approval of our regulators,” Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas Van Praag said.

Bonuses Lost

The New York Times reported earlier today that Goldman Sachs was negotiating to return the money. Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker declined to comment.

David Viniar, Goldman Sachs’s chief financial officer, said Feb. 4 that running the company without government money “would be an easier thing to do.” The firm, which set a Wall Street record for pay in 2007, said in November that Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, 54, and six deputies would forgo their year-end bonuses.

“We wouldn’t do anything that would potentially weaken the firm in an attempt to address a narrow issue,” Van Praag said on the issue of compensation.

Goldman Sachs is also mulling a potential sale of part of its 4.9 percent stake in Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. to raise more than $1 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday.

Predictable Earnings

Investors would likely welcome the sale as a means to raise capital and create a more predictable earnings stream, said William Fitzpatrick, an equity analyst at Optique Capital Management in Racine, Wisconsin, which holds Goldman Sachs shares among its $900 million in assets.

As part of the stimulus package, firms are allowed to repay TARP money without replacing the funds at the discretion of regulators.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon said Feb. 23 the New York-based bank was planning to pay back TARP “as soon as it is prudent” in consultation with regulators. Richard Kovacevich, chairman of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co., criticized the government’s retroactive curbs on bonuses last month and called the plan for bank stress tests “asinine.”

Goldman Sachs “can legitimately make the argument that it’s getting in the way of doing business since they keep changing the rules,” Sorrentino at Huntington said. “Politically I don’t know how you stop them from giving the money back.”