Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Fed backpedals and unveils a scaled-back proposal for bank capital requirements

 The Federal Reserve unveiled plans that would massively scale back a proposal to raise capital requirements for banks after politicians and the banking industry pushed back on the initial plan, warning it could restrict lending and hurt the economy.

The new proposal would increase capital levels for big banks like JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC) by 9% in aggregate, down by half from the original plan from more than a year ago, which set the capital increase to around 19% for those institutions.

Banks with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion, which were initially subject to the stricter standards of the largest banks, would also no longer be subject to the increases — other than the requirement to recognize unrealized gains and losses of their securities portfolios in regulatory capital. This a major reversal following the string of regional bank failures last year that was touched off by Silicon Valley Bank.

“Capital has costs too," Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr said Tuesday at an event in Washington hosted by the Brookings Institution. "As compared to debt, capital is a more expensive source of funding to the bank. Thus, higher capital requirements can raise the cost of funding to a bank, and the bank can pass higher costs on to households, businesses, and clients engaged in a range of financial activities.”

The new version of this plan, known as Basel III endgame, comes after months of anticipation after Fed Chair Jerome Powell said as far back as March that the central bank sought "broad material changes" to the initial proposal and was looking to secure a consensus from the Federal Reserve board.

When it was first released more than a year ago, the capital plan was met with immediate disagreement and division among Fed officials who questioned whether the plan could actually do more harm than good in its initial form.

Fed Governor Michelle Bowman argued that the plan needed "substantive changes" and that an increase in capital requirements at the scale proposed by regulators could significantly harm the economy. Fed Governor Chris Waller also argued the plan needed a major overhaul.

Barr said the changes reflect the feedback the Fed received from the public, improve the tiering of the proposal, and better reflect risks. In his speech, he stressed that the new plans are far from final and that the Fed, along with the Office of the Comptroller for the Currency and FDIC, "have not made final decisions on any aspect of the re-proposals, including those that are not explicitly addressed in the re-proposal."

"This is an interim step," he said.

The comment period, which was initially set for Nov. 30 of last year after being proposed in July 2023, was extended to January 2024 following letters submitted by banks to the Fed listing the many problems they had with the rules along with an aggressive lobbying effort.

Among the top concerns was that the Fed's proposed capital requirements would make costs of several banking activities, from residential mortgage and small business lending to trading, more expensive with such a dynamic potentially embedding higher costs into economic activity.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon even argued the capital plan could cause inflation to rise by way of increasing capital requirements for hedging, which will trickle down to consumers in the form of higher prices for everything from a can of soda to meat products.

The proposed changes unveiled Thursday are part of an effort by bank regulators to follow through on the US version of an international accord known as Basel III, which was developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.

The goal of the Basel committee, which was convened by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, was to set global regulatory capital standards so that banks would have enough in reserves to cover unforeseen losses and survive crises.

Bank regulators across the US, UK, and Europe began rolling out the last version of this accord following the 2007 to 2009 global financial crisis. It was agreed to in 2017, but in the US, the proposal was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Europe and the UK have each moved forward with adopting capital cushion increases in the single digits and are now in the implementation phases.

Bar also said that the Fed is looking at the agency’s large bank stress tests, another measuring stick for how regulators set bank capital cushions in the event of severe market shocks.

“We are attentive to the interactions across all components of our capital framework as well as the combined burden and benefits, and we take these issues seriously,” Barr added.

Though the revised plans may not be final yet, they will play a significant role in overall bank earnings and how much lenders can give back capital to shareholders.

“That's going to be an important factor as we think about how much more we want to do and when in the way of [stock] buybacks,” Citigroup CFO Mark Mason said Monday at a conference in New York.

If the full proposal comes out in September, "expect banks to comment on how much their excess capital will increase vs. current rule during October earnings calls," Morgan Stanley analyst Betsy Graseck said in a Tuesday note.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-fed-backpedals-and-unveils-a-scaled-back-proposal-for-bank-capital-requirements-142309642.html

C4 Delivers Second Development Candidate to Biogen

 Milestone Results in $8 Million Payment to C4 Therapeutics

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/09/10/2943504/0/en/C4-Therapeutics-Announces-Delivery-of-Second-Development-Candidate-to-Biogen.html

Argentina sees energy investment reaching $15 bln next year, fueled by deregulation

 Argentina's government expects investments in the country's energy sector to reach up to $15 billion in 2025 and $16.5 billion in 2026 thanks to its market deregulation push, Energy Secretary Eduardo Rodriguez Chirillo said on Tuesday.

The estimated spending includes additional funds that flow from the country's RIGI investment promotion regime, which range from $2 billion to $2.5 billion per year, according to Rodriguez.

The government of libertarian President Javier Milei has promoted a series of reforms aimed at reducing state intervention in the economy, including a major deregulation push.

The policies seek to facilitate energy exports, in addition to deregulating local prices along with offering more access to foreign currency.

At an energy event, Rodriguez Chirillo argued the measures will lead to a better business climate to attract investment.

https://www.xm.com/research/markets/allNews/reuters/argentina-sees-energy-investment-reaching-15-bln-next-year-fueled-by-deregulation-53922420

Iterum Update on FDA Advisory Committee Discussion

 FDA Decision Expected by PDUFA Goal Date of October 25, 2024

Potential to be First Oral Penem Approved in the U.S.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/09/10/2943519/0/en/Iterum-Therapeutics-Provides-Update-on-FDA-Advisory-Committee-Discussion-of-Oral-Sulopenem-for-the-Treatment-of-uUTI-in-Adult-Women.html

Brent Tumbles Below $70 As Hedge Funds Least Bullish Oil On Record

 Oil just had its worst week in almost a year, and the new week is starting off just as bad amid concerns about oversupply and lack of demand by China, which now appears willing to risk a middle-class revolution - as employment tumbles and consumer confidence has never been lower - rather than stimulate the economy.

Brent tumbled ~10% last week even after OPEC+ postponed its supply hike by two months (amusingly it would have tumbled even more had OPEC+ not delayed its supply hike). Still, given plans to revive 2.2m b/d over the course of a year remain in place, the delay means they are simply kicking the can down the road. And then on Tuesday, it dumped another 2%, sliding below $70 for the first time since 2021, as part of oil's now daily 10am slam, and as hedge funds are convinced there will be a soft-landing everywhere, certainly in chatbots, except in commodities where the hard-landing will somehow surpass the global financial crisis.

And even though commercial stockpiles tumbled to 2024 lows, market watchers - at least those who have no idea of what is actually taking place in the market - see stockpiles "building" through year-end and into 2025, according to Bloomberg, which forgot to turn off sarcasm mode.

Meanwhile, production has been on the rise stateside, muting OPEC+ efforts to restrain supply, but that's only to keep up with demand which - and one wouldn't know this from looking at the price - is also steady and rising. Macquarie sees record US output of 13.9m b/d in 2024, with rigs in the Permian and Bakken basins producing more efficiently. Baker Hughes data show crude rigs have been edging up since their July lows.

It’s hard to fight this bearish mood — in a market that has failed to push higher in a sustained manner despite geopolitical tensions, a testament that demand woes overshadow other drivers.

As the latest sign of weak demand, Saudi Arabia cut pricing of its flagship crude grade for its main market in Asia next month.
The silver lining: hedge funds have once again restarted slashing bullish oil bets, with net longs tumbling to a record low. Usually this marks the bottom.

As energy expert John Kemp writes, hedge funds and other money managers sold the equivalent of 117 million barrels in the six most important futures and options contracts over the seven days ending on September 3.

The combined position was reduced to just 93 million barrels, the lowest for at least a decade. Fund managers were sellers across the board, including NYMEX and ICE WTI (-66 million barrels), Brent (-38 million), European gas oil (-9 million), U.S. diesel (-3 million) and U.S. gasoline (-1 million).

Negative sentiment extended to refined fuels, with extremely bearish positions across gasoline and especially in diesel and other middle distillates.

Funds had sold middle distillates in seven of the most recent nine weeks, slashing their position by 123 million barrels since the start of July. 

Bearishness across all crude and fuels contracts showed investors bracing for a further deceleration in consumption growth, amid signs of a downturn in manufacturing across the United States, Europe and China.

The most recent positions were reported two days before Saudi Arabia and its OPEC⁺ allies announced on September 5 that they would postpone scheduled output increases for two months.

Prior to the announcement, positioning had become extremely stretched on the downside, creating conditions for a sharp price rebound if and when fund managers trim bearish short positions and start to rebuild bullish long ones.

For the moment, however, sentiment has remained very negative, with investors focused on the threat of an industrial downturn pushing prices down even more. Even the OPEC⁺ announcement failed to arrest the downtrend as traders interpreted it as confirming the deteriorating consumption outlook.

Inflation-adjusted front-month WTI prices have slumped to an average of $69 per barrel so far in September, the lowest since early 2021, when the coronavirus pandemic was still raging, with real gas prices nearing record lows as the Harris/Biden oil trading desk does everything in its power to slam commodity prices as low as possible ahead of the election.

 https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/brent-tumbles-below-70-hedge-funds-least-bullish-oil-record

Looting Hits Gucci Store In DC As Chaos Breaks Out In City Center & Georgetown Areas

 The Washington Post confirms "incidents of looting and vandalism" in Georgetown, City Center, and other parts of Washington, DC, in the overnight hours. 

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) released a statement that said, "Overnight, groups of individuals decided to destroy property and burglarize businesses throughout our city, specifically in the City Center and Georgetown areas, along with a store in the H Street Corridor, a store in Logan Circle, and a store north of Columbia Heights."

"We immediately increased our police resources in the impacted areas. Preliminary, MPD is investigating six burglaries and six destruction of property offenses in those area," police said. 


Footage of the looting was uploaded to X. Citizen journalists reported that rioters stormed a Gucci store and other brick-and-mortar shops.

WaPo explained, "The police statement did not specify a reason for the disorderly incidents. However, they came hours after police released body-camera video of the incident this month in which officers fatally shot a violence interrupter." 

Right, because the first response is to loot a Gucci store.

Here's what X users are saying about the incident:

This was only made possible by Biden-Harris' 'new way forward' of so-called change, quickly spiraling the nation into chaos.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/looting-hits-gucci-store-dc-chaos-breaks-out-city-center-georgetown-areas

Michigan Supreme Court Blocks RFK Jr.'s Bid To Remove Name From Ballot

 by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Michigan Supreme Court has denied Robert F. Kennedy’s request to have his name removed from the state’s general election ballot, reversing a lower court ruling and closing the last legal avenue available to Kennedy in the case.

In a split 5–2 ruling issued on Sept. 9, the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the original ruling by the Michigan Court of Claims, which denied Kennedy’s motion for mandamus relief, an extraordinary legal remedy that requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a clear legal right and that the defendant, in this case the Michigan Secretary of State, has a clear duty to act.

The high court ruled that Kennedy did not provide a clear legal basis requiring the removal of his name from the November ballot and failed to identify a law that would leave no room for discretion in this matter on the part of election officials.

“Plaintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines a duty to withdraw a candidate’s name from the ballot nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with ‘such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment,’” reads the majority opinion, which reversed an appeals court’s decision that sided with Kennedy and reinstated the lower court’s decision that dismissed his request with prejudice.

Michigan Supreme Court Justices Brian K. Zahra and David F. Viviano dissented. They argued that there was no statute prohibiting Kennedy from withdrawing from the election and no practical reason to deny Kennedy’s request to remove his name from the ballot before ballots were printed. Their dissent focused on harm to voters, contending that keeping Kennedy on the ballot would confuse voters and distort the true electoral choice.

“There is, however, a significant cost to the integrity of the election: the voters will be improperly denied a choice between persons who are actually candidates, and who are willing to serve if elected,” the dissenting justices wrote.

“The ballots printed as a result of the Court’s decision will have the potential to confuse the voters, distort their choices, and pervert the true popular will and affect the outcome of the election.”

Days before the Supreme Court decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals argued that Kennedy had a “clear legal right” to withdraw, emphasizing that no specific statute prevented a presidential candidate from stepping down, even one nominated by a minor party.

Kennedy, who had been nominated by the Natural Law Party, withdrew from the presidential race on Aug. 23 and endorsed former President Donald Trump. At the time, Kennedy said he wanted his name removed in key swing states so as not to draw votes away from the former president.

“In about 10 battleground states where my presence would be a spoiler, I will remove my name and urge voters not to vote for me,” Kennedy said.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office initially refused Kennedy’s withdrawal request, citing state law that restricts minor party candidates from withdrawing after being nominated at a state convention. Benson’s office also argued that Kennedy’s withdrawal request was too close to the ballot printing deadline.

Kennedy sued over the Secretary of State’s refusal to remove his name from the ballot, with the Michigan Court of Claims ruling against him and the Michigan Court of Appeals later ruling in his favor, prompting Benson’s office to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Neither Kennedy’s campaign nor Benson’s office returned a request for comment on the ruling.

The ruling could have implications for the presidential election, as reports have shown that in swing states like Michigan, Kennedy would take more votes away from Trump than Vice President Kamala Harris.

The decision echoes similar legal battles in other states, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, where Kennedy has faced opposition to his ballot withdrawal requests.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/michigan-supreme-court-blocks-rfk-jrs-bid-remove-name-ballot