Corporate Governance: Investors Gain the Ear of the Listening Banks

The following is an op-ed by Roy Smith, published in Financial News on 6/3/13:

The decisive victory that allows Jamie Dimon to continue in his dual roles as chairman and chief executive of JP Morgan Chase raised once again the issue of whether or not holding both titles is detrimental to corporate governance.

Dimon won handily, as he should have done. But the vote was a disappointment to some corporate governance wonks, who believe all large publicly traded companies should have the same leadership structure.

Forceful leaders, they believe, need to be subject to the restraining influences of wise, avuncular, chairmen to keep the ship steady.

But no one has found compelling evidence to suggest that changing from single to dual roles noticeably improves corporate performance; the underlying strength of the board is much more important than whether one individual should have concentrated executive power.

The chief executives of the three most successful US banks, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, also occupy the position of chairman. (But so did the CEOs of Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia.)

And dual structure failed to keep AIG, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or Citigroup out of trouble.

In Britain, similar dual commands failed to rein in Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group or Barclays.

Years ago, the title of chief executive officer didn’t exist in the US. Instead most companies had different individuals as chairman and president, but it wasn’t always clear who was boss and accountable for the company’s results. Read the full article as published in Financial News.

Roy C. Smith is the Kenneth G. Langone Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance and a Professor of Management Practice.

Posted in Market Risk, NYU Stern, Operational Risk, Reputational Risk | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Prof. Acharya on Inflation-indexed Bonds

The following is an Live Mint/Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Professor Viral Acharya.

In an important policy statement, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) recently announced that it will issue Rs.12,000-15,000 crore of 10-year maturity inflation-indexed bonds (IIBs) in 2013-14 in line with a budget announcement in February.

These bonds will have their coupon rate and the principal value linked to the wholesale price index (WPI). The bonds, according to RBI, were being issued with an aim to protect savings of poor and middle classes from inflation and incentivize the household sector to save in financial instruments rather than buy gold. The issuance would be done through the primary auction route initially for institutional investors and will be extended to the retail investor segment by October.

While there is a general euphoria about the introduction of these instruments, it is important to understand why the option of issuing inflation-indexed bonds was not availed in the past few years when inflation levels and uncertainty were significantly greater. By all measures, inflation appears more under control today—annualized WPI inflation for the month of April is below 5.55% with every component of core inflation also significantly falling.

So, why issue inflation-indexed bonds now?

Let us begin with a few initial remarks about IIBs. They are one of the earliest financial innovations with their initial trading going back to 1780, the first issuance being by the Massachusetts Bay Company. However, most of the observed growth in the market for IIBs happened in the last two decades, with outstanding debt increasing from over $200 in late 1990s to $2 trillion in 2011. Most of the instruments are issued in the long-term maturity category and they remained a relatively smaller proportion of the nominal debt.

In terms of issuers, there are broadly three categories of countries that issued such bonds. The first group includes the Latin American countries experiencing high and volatile inflation, which made IIBs their best available option to raise long-term capital in the bond market. The second group of countries, such as the UK, Australia, Sweden and New Zealand, issued IIBs in the 1980s and early 1990s not out of necessity but as the result of a deliberate policy choice. The issuance of IIBs served both to add credibility to the government’s commitment to these policies and to reduce its cost of borrowing, by capitalizing on excessive inflation expectations in the market. Finally, a third group of industrialized countries, including the US, developed an IIB programme in more recent years, in the context of fairly low and stable inflation and inflation expectations, with a view to improve the investor welfare.

By choosing to issue IIBs now rather than two or three years back, India has chosen to be in the second and third category of issuing governments rather than the first. Read the entire op-ed.

Posted in Credit Risk, NYU Stern, Sovereign Risk | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

MSRM Hosts its first Annual Risk Symposium

The Master of Science in Risk Management Program was proud to host its first Annual Risk Symposium on May 30-31. The Risk Symposium offered an impressive speaker lineup, including former TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky, NYU Stern Dean Peter Henry, BlackRock Managing Director Paul Tice, and NYU Stern Professors Bill Silber and Richard Sylla. The symposium was held over two days and welcomed MSRM students, alumni, and guests from across the globe. MSRM alumni attended from as far as Sweden, Kenya, and the Netherlands.  The 2-day event welcomed over 80 guests from over 20 countries.

The Risk Symposium started off with a “fireside chat” with MSRM Academic Director Ingo Walter and Neil Barofsky, former TARP Inspector General. Barofksy had a front-row seat during the peak of the financial crisis and was charged by the Obama Administration with reporting to the taxpayer on the use of their money and guarantees – a report that led to his new book “Bailout.”

 

The symposium continued with morning lectures and panel presentations. NYU Stern Dean Peter Henry spoke about his new book “Turnaround,” and focused on what separates victories and losses in terms of sustainable economic performance. Dean Henry’s talk was followed by a session on an innovative project- related fixed income financial structure recently brought to market by BlackRock, conducted by Paul Tice Managing Director in charge of this new investment and risk management option.

The morning ended with lecture on leadership in high finance with a historical focus on financial “heroes” from Alexander Hamilton to Paul Volcker. NYU Stern Professor Bill Silber is author of the best-selling new biography of Volcker, and NYU Stern Professor Dick Sylla is the nation’s leading Hamilton scholar – and Chairman of the Museum of American Finance on Wall street.

 

Posted in MS in Risk Management Program, NYU Stern, Regulatory Risk | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

MSRM Welcomes the Class of 2014!

The MS in Risk Management Program was proud to welcome its 5th cohort to NYU Stern last week. The class of 2014, is 42 strong and represents over 16 different nationalities. Over 40% of the cohort are expatriates. Each year the MSRM program welcomes a cohort of executives from all over the world. NYU Stern’s Master of Science in Risk Management program for executives, exposes its students to various areas of risk management in 5 executive-friendly modules. Welcome to Stern Class of 2014!

Posted in MS in Risk Management Program, NYU Stern | Leave a comment

Prof. Acharya’s Research on Gov. Debt is Cited

NYU Stern Professor Viral Acharya’s research on government debt was cited recently by Bloomberg News in “No Lehman Moments as Big Banks Deemed to Big to Fail.”

“Buyers of big-bank debt have been counting on government aid for at least 20 years, says Anginer, who’s also a professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University’s Pamplin College of Business in Falls Church.

He’s researched the issue with Viral Acharya, a finance professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and Joseph Warburton, a law and finance professor at Syracuse University. They collected more than 84,000 data points for 567 financial firms going back to 1990.

The researchers looked specifically at the difference between what the banks paid creditors for borrowing money and what investors earned from owning U.S. government debt. They subtracted that number from the same measurement for smaller banks and, taking into account differences in risk unrelated to bank size, determined the value of the implicit government subsidy.

The discount for the top 10 percent of banks from 1990 to 2010 was worth, on average, $20 billion annually. In 2009, as lending dried up and the government aided the big banks, the borrowing discount ballooned to about $100 billion.”

Read the entire article.

Professor Acharya is Author of Guaranteed to Fail and teaches in the MSRM program.

Posted in Credit Risk, MS in Risk Management Program, NYU Stern, Structured Finance | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Congratulations MSRM Class of 2013!

Congratulations!
The MS in Risk Management Program congratulates the MSRM Class of 2013. The class presented their MSRM capstone projects on May 21, 2013. The presentations were then followed by NYU’s Commencement Ceremonies at Yankee Stadium and Radio City Music Hall. The MSRM Class of 2013 comprises 45 students who represent over 20 nationalities. The group traveled to Europe, Asia, and the US for 5 modules. Read more information about the 2013 cohort. Congratulations class of 2013 on your hard work!

Posted in MS in Risk Management Program, NYU Stern | Leave a comment

Roubini on the Global Economy

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics and International Business at NYU Stern, writes on the global economy. Roubini addresses the Eurozone, China, Japan, the Middle East, and the US, to paint a picture of a global economy where the US is “in the best relative shape” while  Europe is “mired in recessions.” The following is an excerpt from his Project Syndicate Op-Ed: 

The Global Economy on the Fly

ISTANBUL – In the last four weeks, I have traveled to Sofia, Kuala Lumpur, Dubai, London, Milan, Frankfurt, Berlin, Paris, Beijing, Tokyo, Istanbul, and throughout the United States. As a result, the myriad challenges facing the global economy were never far away.

In Europe, the tail risk of a eurozone break-up and a loss of market access by Spain and Italy were reduced by last summer’s decision by the European Central Bank to backstop sovereign debt. But the monetary union’s fundamental problems – low potential growth, ongoing recession, loss of competitiveness, and large stocks of private and public debt – have not been resolved.

Moreover, the grand bargain between the eurozone core, the ECB, and the periphery – painful austerity and reforms in exchange for large-scale financial support – is now breaking down, as austerity fatigue in the eurozone periphery runs up against bailout fatigue in core countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

Austerity fatigue in the periphery is clearly evident from the success of anti-establishment forces in Italy’s recent election; large street demonstrations in Spain, Portugal, and elsewhere; and now the botched bailout of Cypriot banks, which has fueled massive public anger. Throughout the periphery, populist parties of the left and right are gaining ground.

Meanwhile, Germany’s insistence on imposing losses on bank creditors in Cyprus is the latest symptom of bailout fatigue in the core. Other core eurozone members, eager to limit the risks to their taxpayers, have similarly signaled that creditor “bail-ins” are the way of the future.

Outside the eurozone, even the United Kingdom is struggling to restore growth, owing to the damage caused by front-loaded fiscal-consolidation efforts, while anti-austerity sentiment is also mounting in Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary.

Read the entire article here.

Posted in Market Risk, NYU Stern, Sovereign Risk, Systemic Risk | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bloomberg Highlights Viral Acharya’s Research on the Repo Market

Bloomberg featured NYU Stern Professor Viral Acharya’s research in an article about fire sales risk and repo market reforms.

Excerpt from Bloomberg –”A so-called resolution authority for the repo market, to orderly liquidate repurchase agreements and prevent fire sales of underlying assets during periods of financial stress, was proposed as a way to reduce risks in March 2012 by New York University Stern School of Business professors Viral Acharya and T. Sabri Oncu in a paper presented at a Federal Reserve conference in Washington.

Laws and regulations including Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III are focused on systemically important financial companies. What has yet to be fully addressed is systemic risks associated with certain assets and liabilities, such as repurchase agreements, Acharya and Oncu wrote in the report.

Read the entire article.

Posted in Market Risk, Structured Finance, Systemic Risk | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Prof. Mike Pinedo Named Changjiang Scholar

Mike Pinedo, Julius Schlesinger Professor of Operations Management and Chair of the Department of Information, Operations and Management Sciences department was named a Changjiang scholar by the China Ministry of Education, an appointment which is considered highly prestigious by the Chinese government. Professor Pinedo will visit Tianjin University this summer as a Changjiang scholar. Professor Pinedo taught Operational Risk in the 2013 MSRM Program. Congratulations Professor Pinedo!

 

 

Posted in MS in Risk Management Program, NYU Stern, Operational Risk | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Precautionary Hoarding of Liquidity and Inter-Bank Markets: Evidence from the Sub-Prime Crisis

Viral Acharya, NYU SternViral Acharya, C.V. Starr Professor of Economics and Director of the NSE-NYU Stern Initiative on the Study of Indian Capital Markets, and his co-author, Ouarda Merrouche at The World Bank, studied the liquidity demand of large settlement banks in the UK and its effect on the Sterling Money Markets before and during the sub-prime crisis of 2007-08. They found that liquidity holdings of large settlement banks experienced on average a 30 percent increase in the period immediately following August 9, 2007 (the day when money markets froze, igniting the crisis). Following this structural break, settlement bank liquidity had a precautionary nature in that it rose on calendar days with a large amount of payment activity and more so for weaker banks. The researchers established that the liquidity demand by settlement banks caused overnight inter-bank rates to rise, an effect that was virtually absent in the pre-crisis period. This liquidity effect on inter-bank rates occurred in both unsecured borrowing as well as borrowing secured by UK government bonds. Further, the effect was experienced by all settlement banks, regardless of their credit risk, suggestive of an interest-rate contagion from weaker to stronger banks operating through the inter-bank markets. This paper is forthcoming in the Review of Finance. View the paper here.

Posted in Credit Risk, MS in Risk Management Program, NYU Stern, Structured Finance | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment