Professors Engle and Tuckman on The Office of Financial Research and Dr. Richard Berner

Dr. Richard Berner visited NYU Stern recently to discuss his new post as Director of the US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research (OFR), “the first federal agency devoted to quantifying threats to financial stability.” Berner addressed the NYU Stern community about the OFR’s new role in identifying and addressing key risks in financial systems. The Washington Post highlights Dr. Berner and NYU Stern Professors Robert Engle and Bruce Tuckman’s responses to this newly created federal entity.

“That’s a lot of new instrumentation on the dashboard. Could it be enough to keep the economy on the road and crash-free?

Some of the economists who came to see Berner in New York think it might be. One is Robert Engle, the director of Stern’s Volatility Institute, which in recent years has created sophisticated risk indexes. Engle won a Nobel Prize in 2003 for his work developing computer models to measure financial volatility. He sits on an expert panel that advises Berner’s office. In an interview in his office, Engle said it is possible that regulators have enough information, from newly developed tools, to avoid another crisis — if they can summon the will to follow the numbers and move in time to defuse threats. In other words, the issue might be the driver, not the dashboard.

“Enormous amounts of things we know now that we didn’t know before,” Engle said. “And on top of that — and perhaps more importantly — we’ve become more able to act on what we know.”

Other NYU economists worry the Office of Financial Research is chasing a mirage. Bruce Tuckman, a finance professor fresh off a long career in risk management at big Wall Street firms, said the financial system is so complex that a whole control room of indicators wouldn’t suffice to understand it. “That’s the danger with OFR,” he said. “They spend all this time on getting this data that doesn’t tell them where the risks are.”

Read the entire article on the Washington Post. Below are examples of indexes utilized by the OFR, the first graph on the left from the NYU Stern Volatility Institute.

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

MSRM Student Daniel Shin named Yale World Fellow

Korean Venture Capitalist named Yale World Fellow

New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. -  Korean venture capitalist Daniel Shin, MSRM Class of 2013, has been named a 2013 Yale World Fellow, announced Yale University President Richard C. Levin.

Shin oversees global venture capital and a private equity investment program on behalf of Korea Telecom. In addition, he is a founding member and managing director of KingsBay Capital, a Korea-US cross-border venture capital firm with offices in Seoul and San Francisco. He has published several books and is a frequent speaker on subjects related to innovation and tech entrepreneurship.

Shin is among 16 World Fellows selected this year, from a pool of about 2,500 applicants. This year’s cohort brings the total number of Yale World Fellows since the program’s inception in 2002 to 238 Fellows, representing 81 countries.

The Yale World Fellows Program is the University’s signature global leadership development initiative and a core element of Yale’s ongoing commitment to internationalization. Each year, the University invites a group of exemplary mid-career professionals from a wide range of fields and countries for an intensive four-month period of academic enrichment and leadership training.

Congratulations Daniel!

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

The Wisdom of the Market

By Peter Blair Henry, Dean, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Dean Richard R. West Professor of Business, and William R. Berkley Professor of Economics & Finance

In an era of bubbles, crashes, tarnished reputations, and outrage over the gulf between the wealthy and the struggling classes, it may seem like the height of insolence to suggest that stock markets hold the key to economic recovery in the United States and Europe. Wasn’t it market misbehavior that got us into this mess in the first place? But, in fact, policymakers would still do well to look to the stock market as an essential indicator of the likely impact of their reforms.

Stock market reactions to economic reforms provide powerful forecasts of policy effectiveness because changes in stock prices reflect the average opinion of thousands of shareholders who care little for ideological debates and simply consider whether a given change will create or destroy value. This predictive ability makes market movements an important complement to the traditional backward-looking measures Washington is fond of, including growth, inflation, and unemployment.

In particular, policymakers in the United States and Europe need to study the movements of markets over the last few decades in what we used to call the “Third World.” With Europe back in recession and the United States offering temporary solutions to its problems that inspire little confidence, advanced countries sorely need a new direction. By enacting large, unprecedented policy changes over the last three decades, developing countries turned around their economies and became the “emerging markets” that now drive global growth. Historical analysis of stock price reactions to policy-reform announcements made by governments in emerging economies across the globe demonstrates repeatedly that decisive, clearly communicated plans to implement market-friendly policies are what drive growth and create value — not just for shareholders but for all.

Read the entire article on the Financial Times.

Posted in Foreign Exchange Risk, Market Risk, MS in Risk Management Program | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on Reputation and Governance in Banking

The following is a post written by Professor Ingo Walter, Academic Director of the MS in Risk Management Program:

The epic financial crisis of a few years ago inflicted immense damage on the process of financial intermediation, the fabric of the real economy, and the reputation of banks and bankers. Even today, some five years later, little has happened to restore financial firms to their former glory near the top of the reputational food-chain in most countries. For reasons of their own, many boards and managers in the banking industry have little good to say about the taxpayer bailouts and the inevitable regulatory tightening. In the words for former Barclays CEO Bob Diamond, “There was a period of remorse and apology for banks. I think that period is over. Frankly, the biggest issue is how do we put some of the blame game behind us? There’s been apologies and remorse, now we need to build some confidence.”

There have been some notable exceptions, of course. In the middle of the crisis Josef Ackermann, former CEO of Deutsche Bank and Chairman of the International Institute of Finance (the preeminent lobbying organization for the world’s largest banks), noted in 2008 that the industry as a whole was guilty of poor risk management, with serious overreliance on flawed models, inadequate stress-testing of portfolios, recurring conflicts of interest, and lack of common sense, as well as irrational compensation practices not linked to long-term profitability – with a growing perception by the public that banking was the playground of “clever crooks and greedy fools.” Ackermann concluded that the banking industry had a great deal of work to do to regain its reputation, and hoped that this could preempt damaging regulation. It was already too late for that.

Crisis-driven reputational damage at the firm level can also be inferred from remarks by Peter Kurer, former Supervisory Board Chairman of UBS AG, who noted at the bank’s annual general meeting in April 2008 that “We shouldn’t fool ourselves. We can’t pretend that there has been no reputational damage. Experience says it goes away after two or three years.” Perhaps it does, perhaps not. But the hemorrhage of UBS private client withdrawals at the height of the crisis and immediately thereafter suggests severe reputational damage to what was then the world’s largest private bank.

Read the entire article.

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

Student Profile: From Goldman to the Fed: An Inside Look

Justin Lerner, currently enrolled in the NYU Stern MS in Risk Management Program, has been professionally involved with risk management in a variety of roles since 1998. Currently charged with risk and policy at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which he joined in 2011, Justin spent 13 years previously at Goldman Sachs, in risk roles ranging from managing derivatives risk on the NYMEX and AMEX exchange floors to dealing with Hedge Funds in prime brokerage and clearing.

Still, he acknowledges, he had plenty to learn from Stern’s Master of Science in Risk Management program. “My risk knowledge was narrowly focused on issues that were investment-bank driven, such as asset market risk, derivatives, and firm balance sheet liquidity,” he explains. “I was looking to expand my perspective given that I am now working for the Federal Reserve, whose mandate of systemic stability and prudential regulation is much broader.”

A Long Island, N.Y., native, with an undergraduate business degree from SUNY-Binghamton, Justin spent more than three years in London for Goldman, where he headed the Risk Management desk for GSI Clearing in Europe and was responsible for risk management for EU- and Asia-based clients. Among other achievements, he co-headed the development of an institutionalized risk platform for Europe and Asia, as well as partnered with other senior risk managers in developing risk methodology for Prime Brokerage and Clearing clients. He explains that the methodology, through a multifactor scenario analysis, modeled global risk in equities, options, futures, commodities, FX, credit, and OTC products, unlocking balance sheet usage for hedge fund clients while mitigating risk.

Read more about Justin’s student profile.

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

Nouriel Roubini: Ten QE Questions

The following is an article by NYU Stern Professor of Economics and International Business, Nouriel Roubini.

Most observers regard unconventional monetary policies such as quantitative easing (QE) as necessary to jump-start growth in today’s anemic economies. But questions about the effectiveness and risks of QE have begun to multiply as well. In particular, ten potential costs associated with such policies merit attention.

First, while a purely “Austrian” response (that is, austerity) to bursting asset and credit bubbles may lead to a depression, QE policies that postpone the necessary private- and public-sector deleveraging for too long may create an army of zombies: zombie financial institutions, zombie households and firms, and, in the end, zombie governments. So, somewhere between the Austrian and Keynesian extremes, QE needs to be phased out over time.

Second, repeated QE may become ineffective over time as the channels of transmission to real economic activity become clogged. The bond channel doesn’t work when bond yields are already low; and the credit channel doesn’t work when banks hoard liquidity and velocity collapses. Indeed, those who can borrow (high-grade firms and prime households) don’t want or need to, while those who need to – highly leveraged firms and non-prime households – can’t, owing to the credit crunch.

Read the full article on Project Syndicate.

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

Student Profile: Rose Kinuthia Looks to the Future at KCB Bank in Kenya

Rose Kinuthia, MSRM ’13, is an accomplished banking professional, with a blue-chip background. She is currently chief risk officer of KCB Bank in Nairobi, Kenya, having joined the organization in 2004 as divisional director of risk management. Previously, she worked for the First National Bank of Chicago in Nairobi; New York Life Insurance Company in New York; and Barclays Bank in Nairobi. She holds a BA in Economics and French from the University of Nairobi and an MBA from Adelphi University in New York.

The risks covered in the profile of the NYU program are a perfect match for the risks that I need to cover in my job, and this is one of the things that really attracted me to the program.

In her current position since 2007, Rose has expanded the scope of the bank’s risk management framework to cover enterprise-wide risk and prepared the bank toward Basel II and Basel III readiness. She says risk management gives her “the opportunity to contribute toward building organizational sustainability and strengthening the institutional framework so as to ensure that it is built to last.” She decided to take on the challenge of adding a Master’s Degree in Risk Management to her resumé to deepen her knowledge and acquire best-practice techniques on enterprise-wide risk management.

Read more about Rose’s experience in the MSRM program.

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

Ed Altman to Launch New ETF for Distressed Debt

NYU Stern Professor Ed Altman’s latest project was highlighted in the Wall Street Journal. Altman, inventor of the Z-score model and Z-score+ app, is set to release a new exchange-traded fund (ETF) called “Market Vectors-Altman Default & Distressed Bond ETF.” The new ETF, comprised of half distressed bonds and half defaulted bonds, is a unique type of distressed debt investing. Altman formally announced this new ETF at NYU Stern’s recent Hedge Fund Association Conference. The proposal was submitted to the SEC in November 2012.

“I’ve oftentimes been asked ‘Why not make the [Altman-Kuehne Defaulted Bond] index into a product that people can trade?’” Mr. Altman said. “For the first time, we’re going to make an attempt at it.”

Read more about Altman’s ETF. Ed Altman is the Max L. Heine Professor of Finance at the Stern School of Business, New York University and taught Bankruptcy and Reorganization to the current MSRM class of 2013.

Posted in Bankruptcy, NYU Stern, Structured Finance | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dean Henry’s New Book- TURNAROUND: Third World Lessons for First World Growth

The following is a post by NYU Stern Office of Public Affairs:

Thirty years ago, China seemed hopelessly mired in poverty, Mexico triggered the Third World Debt Crisis, and Brazil suffered under hyperinflation. Since then, these and other developing countries have turned themselves around, while First World nations, battered by crises, depend more than ever on sustained growth in emerging markets.

In Turnaround, economist Peter Blair Henry argues that the secret to emerging countries’ success (and ours) is discipline—sustained commitment to a pragmatic growth strategy. With the global economy teetering on the brink, the stakes are higher than ever. And because stakes are so high for all nations, we need less polarization and more focus on facts to answer the fundamental question: which policy reforms, implemented under what circumstances, actually increase economic efficiency? Pushing past the tired debates, Henry shows that the stock market’s forecasts of policy impact provide an important complement to traditional measures.

Through examples ranging from the drastic income disparity between Barbados and his native Jamaica to the “catch up” economics of China and the taming of inflation in Latin America, Henry shows that in much of the emerging world the policy pendulum now swings toward prudence and self-control. With similar discipline and a dash of humility, he concludes, the First World may yet recover and create long-term prosperity for all its citizens.

Bold, rational, and forward-looking, Turnaround offers vital lessons for developed and developing nations in search of stability and growth.

To learn more about the book visit: www.peterblairhenry.com.

 

 

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

Lawrence White Op-Ed: Stop Mandating Reliance on Ratings

The following is an Op-Ed written by Lawrence White, NYU Stern Professor of Economics published online on the New York Times Opinion Pages.

The Justice Department’s suit against Standard & Poor’s is a fresh reminder of the large mistakes by the three major rating agencies – S.&P., Moody’s, and Fitch – in their evaluations of mortgage-based bonds during 2004-2007.

There’s an understandable urge to further regulate bond raters to prevent such mistakes in the future. But, such regulation is likely to discourage smaller rating firms, who could well be sources of new ideas, methodologies and, technologies.

Some have called for an end to the “issuer-pays” model, where whoever is issuing the bond pays for its rating. But ratings of corporate, municipal, and sovereign government bonds have had the “issuer-pays” model for over 40 years and have not experienced anything like the severe problems that arose in mortgage bonds.

Instead, there is a better way. Eliminate the government’s regulatory reliance on ratings. Since the 1930s, financial regulators have required many financial institutions to heed the ratings of a handful of raters. The goals of the regulators were good: making sure those institutions’ portfolios held safe bonds. But mandating reliance on the Big Three enhanced their importance and made it harder for other rating firms to compete with them.

And since bond markets (except for municipal bonds) are dominated by financial institutions, most bond investors are managers of institutional portfolios who are (or should be) professionals. There’s no need to require that these institutions rely on the rating agencies’ grades. Professional bond managers can exercise judgment on whether to do the necessary research themselves or, if they rely on third-party advisers (like ratings agencies), decide who is reliable, and be held accountable for their choices.

For some institutions – banks, insurance companies, pension funds, etc. – there still needs to be regulatory oversight of their research or their choices of third-party advisers. But this can be much less constraining than the mandatory use of ratings from a handful of raters.

The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 instructed federal regulators to eliminate their mandated reliance on ratings, and some bank regulators have done so. But, maddeningly, for money market funds and broker-dealers, the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to mandate reliance on ratings.

Faster S.E.C. action would give smaller rating firms more opportunities sooner.

The alternative is continued regulation of the raters, which would make the Big Three raters even more important. Why would anybody want that?

Read the original post here.

Posted in Credit Risk, MS in Risk Management Program, Regulatory Risk, Sovereign Risk, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment