<div class="header">
<div class="left">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="right">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=c5714c24/61a1580e&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787506c_nyt5&ad=BEMH_120x60_May4_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthebestexoticmarigoldhotel" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="timestamp">May 28, 2012</div>
<h1>The Simplicity Solution</h1>
<span><h6 class="byline">By JOE NOCERA</h6></span>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Time to fess up: With the two-year anniversary of the passage of <a title="A DealBook report" href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/the-dodd-frank-bill-up-close/">the Dodd-Frank financial reform law</a> approaching, I’m still not sure what to think about the darn thing. </p>
<p>
Will the law prevent another bank bailout if we have a repeat of September 2008? Will it bring transparency to the trading of <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/derivatives/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about derviatives." class="meta-classifier">derivatives</a>? Will the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/v/volcker_rule/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about the Volcker Rule." class="meta-classifier">Volcker Rule</a>
truly eliminate the ability of banks to make risky trades for their own
account? Are all the new regulations burying small and medium-size
banks in excessive costs? Or are they ensuring their safety and
soundness? No one can say for sure. </p>
<p>
The crucial difference between <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/7165/Glass-Steagall-Act.html">the Glass-Steagall Act</a>, the landmark banking reform law that was passed during <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/great_depression_1930s/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="Recent and archival news about the Great Depression." class="meta-classifier">the Great Depression</a>,
and Dodd-Frank, is that the former had an appealing simplicity that
Dodd-Frank lacks. Glass-Steagall did one basic thing. It forced banks to
get rid of their investment banking arms. Dodd-Frank, by contrast,
accepts the complexity of modern banking — and then adds to that
complexity with its thousands of pages of regulations. That complexity
is something to worry about. </p>
<p>
That is why I wrote <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/bankings-got-a-new-critic.html">a recent column</a>
about a persuasive paper by Karen Petrou, a banking expert, in which
she argued that Dodd-Frank was creating a new kind of risk that she
labeled “complexity risk.” And it is why, last week, I found myself
drawn to an article in the June issue of The Harvard Business Review
that argued for a handful of simpler ways to restrain banking behavior.
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://hbr.org/2012/06/four-ways-to-fix-banks/ar/1">The article</a>, entitled “Four Ways to Fix Banks,” was written by <a href="http://topics.wsj.com/person/K/sallie-krawcheck/5353">Sallie Krawcheck</a>.
At 47, Krawcheck has been through the banking wars. She had several
high-level jobs at Citigroup, including chief financial officer; most
recently, she successfully ran Merrill Lynch’s huge brokerage operation
for Bank of America. (She left last September.) </p>
<p>
In a nifty bit of timing, her article comes out just as the country is reacting to the news of JPMorgan Chase’s <a title="A DealBook report" href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/jpmorgan-discloses-significant-losses-in-trading-group/">big credit derivative losses</a>.
To Krawcheck, the questions posed by the JPMorgan fiasco speak directly
to the problems posed by complexity. “The JPMorgan loss is manageable,”
she told me the other day. “But it allows us to stand back and ask:
‘What does this say about the banking system?’ ” </p>
<p>
To her, it says that even at an institution as well run as JPMorgan, the
complexity of banking can be overwhelming. “It appears the trades
themselves were so complex that the risks were not well understood,” she
said. “The bank management didn’t understand them. The regulators
weren’t aware of them. And the bank’s risk management system didn’t pick
them up.” </p>
<p>
Indeed, in her view, all the talk about whether the Volcker Rule would
have prevented the trades is beside the point. To her, the issue is not
whether a bank is taking excessive risk for its own account. It is
whether the bank’s overall risk profile makes sense — no matter what the
purpose. “How much risk do we want banks to take?” she asks. “That is
the debate we need to have.” </p>
<p>
In her Harvard Business Review article, she lays out a handful of
market-oriented ideas that would almost surely pare back the complexity
risk posed by banks. My favorite is her first one: top bank executives
and senior management should be paid in bonds as well as stocks — and in
the same percentage as the bank’s risk profile. Thus, as she envisions
it, a bank that had a dollar of debt for every dollar of equity would
pay its chief executive half in debt and half in stock. But if the bank
was accumulating, say, $30 of debt for every $1 of equity, the
executive’s pay would also be skewed 30 to 1 in favor of debt. One would
be hard pressed to imagine a more surefire way to focus a banker’s mind
on making sure the bank could pay back that debt. </p>
<p>
Her other ideas are almost as good. She thinks dividends should be paid
as a percentage of earnings — so that if earnings decrease, the bank can
retain more of its capital. She says that bank managers should be
judged less on the earnings they generate and more on the quality of
those earnings — partly because earnings are often a function of
interest rates, which bank executives have no control over. And she
argues that bank boards should pay much more attention to the businesses
that seem to be booming. In banking, those are often the businesses
that can cause the nastiest surprises. </p>
<p>
It is good that people like Karen Petrou and Sallie Krawcheck are
raising alarms about complexity — and putting forth some sensible, and
simpler, solutions for making banking safer. Unfortunately, even after
the JPMorgan fiasco, it is unlikely that anyone is going to act on them —
at least not right now. The Democrats are wedded to Dodd-Frank, while
the Republicans care only about putting up roadblocks to Dodd-Frank’s
implementation. </p>
<p>
Sadly, the only thing that will change that is another crisis. Until then, we’re stuck with complexity. </p>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<center>
</center>
<div id="upNextWrapper"><div style id="upNext"><div class="wrapper opposingFloatControl"><br style="clear:both"></div></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>