July 18, 2014
The College of Supervisors Considered
Posted by David Zaring

Over at DealBook, I've got something on the financial regulatory reform that Europeans, in particular, love.  Give it a look.  And let me know if you agree with this bit:

Can a supervisory college work in lieu of a vibrant global resolution authority regime? The problem with these colleges is not that they are implausible, but that they have not really been tried in a crisis. The best-known supervisory college outside of the European Union was created in 1987 to monitor the Luxembourg-based, but international, Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Rumors of widespread fraud in the management of the bank were plentiful, but the collegiate approach did not mean that these problems were nipped in the bud. Although coordinated supervision led regulators to close many of bank’s branches at once after the bank’s accountant resigned and its insolvency became obvious, it is not clear whether Bank of Credit and Commerce International is a college success story or cautionary tale.

There are other reasons to worry about relying on colleges. The collegiate approach is meant to encourage communication more than action. Colleges operate as peers, convened by the home banking regulator, without the sort of hierarchy of decision-making and direction that leads to coordinated action.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

June 19, 2014
Sovereignty Mismatch And The New Administrative Law
Posted by David Zaring

I've been on a bit of an international and administrative law kick these days, but as always, the case study is financial regulation.  If you're interested in Sovereignty Mismatch And The New Administrative Law, available from the Washington University Law Review and here, you know what to do.  Here's the abstract:

In the United States, making international policymaking work with domestic administrative law poses one of the thorniest of modern legal problems — the problem of sovereignty mismatch. Purely domestic regulation, which is a bureaucratic exercise of sovereignty, cannot solve the most challenging issues that regulators now face, and so agencies have started cooperating with their foreign counterparts, which is a negotiated form of sovereignty. But the way they cooperate threatens to undermine all of the values that domestic administrative law, especially its American variant, stands for. International and domestic regulation differ in almost every important way: procedural requirements, substantive remits, method of legitimation, and even in basic policy goals. Even worse, the delegation of power away from the United States is something that our constitutional, international, and administrative law traditions all look upon with great suspicion. The resulting effort to merge international and domestic regulatory styles has been uneven at best. As the globalization of policymaking is the likely future of environmental, business conduct, and consumer protection regulation — and the new paradigm-setting present of financial regulation — the sovereignty mismatch problem must be addressed; this Article shows how Congress can do so.

Comments and concerns welcome.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Institutions| Globalization/Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

June 05, 2014
The Second Circuit Reverses Judge Rakoff On The SEC
Posted by David Zaring

After the SEC settled with Citigroup over misreprsentations made about a toxic security it sold during the financial crisis for a centimillion dollar fine among other things, Judge Rakoff rejected the settlement for failing to contain "cold, hard, solid facts established either by admissions or trials."  I've been pretty critical of the decision, which was always headed for reversal.  Not that Judge Rakoff cares: his familiarity with the agency (he once was in it), his generally respected status as a judge, and rumblings of discontent by other courts asked to approve other settlements once he fired his shot across the SEC's bow has led to a change in approach by the agency; I talked about the new policy here.

The problem with the decision was twofold, according to the Court of Appeals, at least as I interpret it. 

Problem 1: Doctrinally, a settlement decision is an exercise of enforcement discretion, and enforcement discretion is basically unreviewable because the alternative - making it reviewable - would thrust the courts into the heart of what the executive branch does.  Because the SEC wanted continuing court supervision of Citigroup as a consequence of the settlement, Rakoff did, indeed, have something to do.  But if the SEC had simply dismissed its suit in exchange for the payment of a fine, which is less onerous than a fine plus continuing supervision by a court, Rakoff would have had, literally, no role to play in the resolution of the case.  So requiring cold, hard facts to be established as a condition of signing off on a deal was a radical increase in the oversight of the SEC by a court.

No surprise, then, that the Second Circuit said that "there is no basis in the law for the district court to require an adminision of liability as a condition for approving a settlement between the parties.  The decision to require an admission of liability before entering into a consent decree rests squarely with the SEC."

Problem 2: Settlements are not about right and wrong, while admissions of guilt are.  Settlements are about moving on.  We don't expect private parties to establish whether management caused the bankruptcy or someone else did, whether that product really was dangerous, or was misused by consumers, or whatever.  And these can be matters of great public import.  So it was never clear why the government, even though, yes, it is a state actor, should be treated very differently.

No shock, then, that the Second Circuit has said that "consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism" and "normally compromises in which the parties give up something they might have won in litigation and waive their rights to litigation."

According to the appellate court, the right way to review consent decrees is for procedural clarity and, as far as the public interest is concerned, with Chevron deference to reasonable decisions by the agency.  It's not totally clear what that deference means - the court faulted Rakoff for figuring out whether the public interest in the truth was served by the deal when he should have been deciding "whether the public interest would be disserved by entry of the consent decree."  But there you go.

Anyway, I think this stuff is interesting, because it's a tool in the regulatory arsenal, and indeed, my first baby law professor article was on just that.

 

Permalink | Administrative Law| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Securities | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 29, 2014
Harvard Grads as Bubble Predictors
Posted by Erik Gerding

Here is an old saw: the best way to predict bubbles is to look at the industry to which Harvard MBA grads are flocking.  I used this as a laugh line when I spoke to David’s students at Wharton in October.  Now Matt O’Brien at the Washington Post Wonkblog extends the analysis to Crimson undergrads.

O’Brien’s article is the latest salvo in the analysis of what makes “Organization Kids” flock to finance.   Kevin Roose’s Young Money made a splash when it was published earlier this year.  Academics looking to understand students should consider delving into what makes students who enter finance and law with more than a dismissive lament of “kids these days.”  Indeed, the modern university seems designed specifically to create organization kids.  Think of how the bizarre gatekeeping rituals of college admissions filter down to create an achievement junky culture that begins in middle school if not earlier.  Students and parents seek to anticipate the divinations of middle aged oracles who themselves attempt to divine meaning from personal statements and lists of extracurriculars.

The Harvard MBA Indicator is a fun parlor game.  But it also suggests that in trying to understand deep questions such as why bubbles begin and how financial institutions operate, we might look at a broader set of disciplines than just economics.   Some very interesting legal scholarship on bubbles, financial markets (think Stuart Banner’s history) and financial institutions (Annelise Rile’s sociological studies of Japanese firms) serves as examples of the possibilities.  If academics lament their students being organization kids, they should have a little self-awareness and step outside their own institutional comfort zone.

Permalink | Finance| Financial Institutions| Law & Society| Law Schools/Lawyering| Legal Scholarship | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Regulator Rotation and Peer Review
Posted by Erik Gerding

Two bright spots yesterday from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  First, the OCC announced a new policy of rotating examiners among banks.  Second, this recommendation stemmed from a peer review of the OCC by international financial regulators.  With multiple eyes, all bugs are shallower.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 28, 2014
RIP IRB & DIY Cap Reqs
Posted by Erik Gerding

In Governor Tarullo’s closely watched speech on bank regulation (I already blogged on the idea of a sliding scale of regulation based on bank size), he also argued for ending the IRB approach to capital requirements.  How does IRB translate into Plain(er) English: DIY capital requirements for big banks.  Tarullo’s argument is based in part on obsolescence: all the increases to capital in Dodd-Frank and Basel III dwarfed the IRB component.  But it is also based on the fact that DIY capital requirements was a spectacularly bad idea (something I wrote about back when).  Big banks have built in incentives (courtesy of government guarantees, explicit and implicit) to lower their capital and increase their leverage.  Tarullo’s coming to bury not praise this part of Basel II calls for revisiting some of Joe Norton’s prescient work critiquing that accord as a political economy product of lobbying by behemoth banks. If we take New Governance and its experimentalism seriously, it is vital that we look at experiments that failed.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Tinker, Tailor, Tarullo: Diff’rent Strokes for Diff’rent Banks
Posted by Erik Gerding

A little over a week Governor Tarullo gave a fascinating speech that focused on creating different regulatory approaches for different sized banks.  This is a must read for policymakers and scholars (and further evidence of the value of having at least one lawyer or expert in prudential regulation on the Federal Reserve Board).  Tarullo advocates pushing further the approach in Dodd-Frank of having a sliding scale with different regulatory standards for different tiers of banks. 

Several news outlets picked up on Tarullo’s call to reduce compliance costs for community banks.  Tarullo’s welcome approach recognizes that not all banks pose the same amount or types of risk.  It contrasts sharply with the views of folks like Tim Geithner, who in his Stress Test memoir, discounts reform proposals that targeted the “popular villain” of size (see pages 391-2).  Oddly, Geithner’s memoir also makes the case that the government did not have enough “foam for the runway” when some of the jumboest jetliners started to plummet in the Panic of 2007-2008.

Still Geithner makes a point that serves as a mild corrective addendum for Tarullo’s sliding scale approach: many financial crises started with the risk-taking and failure of smaller institutions.  Indeed, too-big-to-fail is but one problem.  It should not completely overshadow the risks of herd behavior and too-correlated to fail.  The collective actions of stampeding small institutions can generate big doses of systemic risk. 

Tarullo’s speech implies that “macroprudential” regulation should only kick in for medium sized banks and ramp up further still for the behemoths.  But the case for no macroprudential regulations for smaller firms depends on what we mean by “macroprudential.”  One kind of macroprudential regulation focuses on correlated risks across financial institutions (what Claudio Borio labels the “cross-sectional” dimension).  What does this mean concretely?  Regulators need to worry when even small financial institutions collectively have too much risk exposure to the same types of losses (e.g. subprime residential mortgages, the Sunbelt, the energy sector, etc.).  So even community banks need to come under the macroprudential umbrella.

The good news for community banks is that the monitoring cost of looking at correlated risks should (and likely has to) sit with regulators.  No individual community bank would be able to assess the overlap between its risk portfolio and that of hundreds or thousands of competitors.  Regulators, by contrast, are built to serve these information-gathering and coordination (or anti-coordination if you want to get technical) functions. 

Regulators must also carry the burden of looking at how regulations can promote dangerous herd behavior by financial institutions and how this herd behavior can increase during bubble periods (the subject of Chapter 7 of my book).  But that is a topic for another day.

Permalink | Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 14, 2014
When Insurance is Systemically Risky
Posted by Erik Gerding

Dan and Steven Schwarcz have an insightful new article, Regulating Systemic Risk in Insurance (forthcoming Univ. of Chicagao Law Review).  The potential systemic risk in the insurance industry became front page news after AIG (see here for an essay questioning the AIG bailouts).  It has continued to simmer; the Financial Stability Oversight Council designated both AIG and Prudential as non-bank SIFIs (systemically important financial institutions).  One criticism of this desgination is that it may lead to bank-style regulations being imposed on these firms even though the risks they pose are different in kind from banks (e.g., insurance firms typically don't engage in maturity transformation).

So how might insurance firms pose systemic risk concerns?  Schwarcz fils and per focus less on size and Too-big-to-fail, and more on risk correlations.  This insight is welcome: the Beltway obsession with size has obscured other dangers, such as herd behavior and correlated risk exposures.    

What should be done?  Schwarcz and Schwarcz argue for a greater federal role in regulating insurance.  Yet they chose to focus less on FSOC and more on an expansive role for one of Dodd-Frank's less well-known innovations, the Federal Insurance Office.  Their abstract is after the jump...

Schwarz & Schwarcz abstract:

As exemplified by the dramatic failure of American International Group (AIG), insurance companies and their affiliates played a central role in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. It is therefore not surprising that the Dodd-Frank Act – the United States’ primary legislative response to the crisis – contained an entire title dedicated to insurance regulation, which has traditionally been the responsibility of individual states. The most important of these insurance-focused reforms in Dodd-Frank empowered the Federal Reserve Bank to impose an additional layer of regulatory scrutiny on top of state insurance regulation for a small number of “systemically important” insurers, such as AIG. But in focusing on the risk that an individual insurer could become too big to fail, this Article argues that Dodd-Frank largely overlooked a second, and equally important, potential source of systemic risk in insurance: the prospect that correlations among individual insurance companies could contribute to or cause widespread financial instability. In fact, the Article argues that there are often substantial correlations among individual insurance companies with respect to both their interconnections with the larger financial system and their vulnerabilities to failure. As a result, the insurance industry as a whole can pose systemic risks that regulation should attempt to identify and manage. Traditional state-based insurance regulation, the Article contends, is poorly adapted at accomplishing this given the mismatch between state boundaries and systemic risks and states’ limited oversight of non-insurance financial markets. As such, the Article suggests enhancing the power of the Federal Insurance Office – a federal entity currently primarily charged with monitoring the insurance industry – to supplement or preempt state law when states have failed to satisfactorily address gaps or deficiencies in insurance regulation that could contribute to systemic risk.

Permalink | Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 13, 2014
What the Economist Forgets in its History of Five Financial Crises
Posted by Erik Gerding

A few weeks back (I am catching up on my blogging), the Economist featured a terrific essay on “A History of Finance in Five Crises.”  The conclusion of the essay – “successive reforms have tended to insulate investors from risk” and “this pins risk on the public purse … [t]o solve this problem means putting risk back into the private sector” – resonates.  However, the Economist makes a few surprising errors of omission in reaching this point.

First, many financial crises occurred without much of a state bailouts or safety net.  The Economist starts its history with the Panic of 1792 in the United States.  By that point England had already experienced a crisis in the late 1690s and the South Seas Bubble in 1720 and France had suffered through the searing Mississippi Bubble (I discuss all of these in Chapter 2 of my book).  The Economist then hopscotches to the Panic of 1825.  Roughly every ten years after that, Britain experienced another bubble and crash (also detailed in my book).  It is less than clear how government safety nets triggered these crises.

These crises point to a second omission: each of these 19th Century British crises – the Panic of 1825, the Panic of 1837, the Crisis of 1847 (it is a mystery to me what causes some incidents to qualify as a “Panic” and others to be a “Crisis”), the Crisis of 1857, and the Overend Gurney Crisis of 1866 – was preceded by a liberalization of corporate law or an expansion of limited liability for corporate shareholders.  Some scholars wax poetic about the “sine curve” of regulation without tracing that back in history.   Well, British corporate law (see also Chapter 2 of my book) provides the caffeine for that coffee.  This corporate law history has several important implications:

State intervention in financial markets takes other forms than deposit insurance and government bailouts.  This intervention often occurs before crises.  Indeed, I argue that booming markets and bubbles create strong incentives for interest groups to lobby for, and policymakers to provide, legal changes that further stimulate markets.  What I call “regulatory stimulus” goes beyond “deregulation” and includes government subsidies or legal preferences (think bankruptcy exemptions for swaps) for particular markets.  It also includes active government investments in markets (think all those state land and money giveaways to 19th Century railways). 

Regulatory stimulus in the form of changes to corporate law has particularly powerful effects.  The corporate form provides ideal for lobbying for regulatory favors: corporations solve collective action problems by centralizing decision-making and allow managers to lobby with “other people’s money.” 

Moreover, as the Economist hints but doesn’t quite hammer home, limited liability can generate moral hazard, which becomes particularly vicious if risk-taking can be externalized onto financial markets and taxpayers.

The Economist’s third omission is the most amusing (at least to nerds like me).  The magazine notes that after the Overend Gurney Crisis in 1866, “Britain then enjoyed 50 years of financial calm, a fact that some historians reckon was due to the prudence of a banking sector stripped of moral hazard.”  Many economists reckon that these years of calm owe more to the Bank of England finally assuming the mantle of lender of last resort in a banking crisis.  The intellectual godfather of this was none other than Walter Bagehot, the legendary editor of the Economist.  Perhaps this failure to provide credit where it is due owes to some intellectual Oedipal issues at the journal?

The fourth omission in the essay is perhaps the most unforgivable.  The Economist talks about the Great Crash of 1929 without mentioning the critique that the Federal Reserve failed to serve as lender-of-last-resort and pursued a destructive monetary policy at critical junctures.  Indeed, these are state interventions that many economists advocate that central banks take in the face of a banking crisis.  These state interventions also provide a government safety net that can create moral hazard.

 Which leads to the most biting criticism of the Economist piece: letting the economy burn in the wake of a financial crisis is pure but risks being purely destructive.  Rather than focusing on unravelling government safety nets for markets, we should be thinking about how to regulate financial firms given their inevitability.

Permalink | Corporate Law| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Legal History | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 12, 2014
Summer Reading from Colorado’s Business Law Colloquium
Posted by Erik Gerding

We enjoyed a great lineup of speakers and cutting edge scholarship here in Boulder this past semester as part of CU’s Business Law Colloquium.  The following papers make for excellent start-of-the-summer reading:

Dan Katz (Michigan State): Quantitative Legal Prediction – or – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Preparing for the Data Driven Future of the Legal Services Industry: a provocative look at Big Data will help clients analyze everything from whether to bring or settle a lawsuit to how to hire legal counsel.  Katz examines implications for legal education.

Rob Jackson (Columbia): Toward a Constitutional Review of the Poison Pill (with Lucian Bebchuk): Jackson and Bebchuk kicked a hornet’s nest with their argument that some state antitakeover statutes (and, by extension, poison pills under those statutes) may be preempted by the Williams Act.  See here for the rapid fire response from Martin Lipton.

Brad Bernthal (Colorado): What the Advocate’s Playbook Reveals About FCC Institutional Tendencies in an Innovation Age: my co-teacher interviewed telecom lawyers to map out both their strategies for influencing the Federal Communications Commission and what these strategies mean for stifling innovation in that agency.

Kate Judge (Columbia): Intermediary Influence:  Judge examines the mechanisms by which intermediaries – both financial and otherwise – engage in rent-seeking rather than lowering transaction costs for market participants.  The paper helps explain everything from Tesla’s ongoing fight with the Great State of New Jersey to sell cars without relying on dealers to entrenchment by large financial conglomerates.  

Lynn Stout (Cornell): Killing Conscience: The Unintended Behavioral Consequences of 'Pay For Performance': Stout argues that pay for performance compensation in companies undermines ethical behavior by framing choices in terms of monetary reward.  This adds to the growing literature on compliance which ranges from Tom Tyler’s germinal work to Tung & Henderson, who argue for adapting pay for performance for regulators.

Steven Schwarcz (Duke): The Governance Structure of Shadow Banking: Rethinking Assumptions About Limited Liability: Schwarcz argues for imposing additional liability on the “owner-managers” of some shadow banking entities to dampen the moral hazard and excessive risk taking by these entities, which contributed to the financial crisis.  This paper joins a chorus of other papers arguing to using shareholder  or director & officer liability mechanisms to fight systemic risk.  (See Hill & PainterAdmati, Conti-Brown, & Pfleiderer; and Armour & Gordon).

[I’ll inject myself editorially on this one paper: this is a provocative idea, but one that would make debt even cheaper relative to equity than it already is.  This would encourage firms to ratchet up already high levels of leverage.  I looked at the expansion of limited liability in Britain in the 18th Century in Chapter 2 of my book.  The good news for Schwarcz’s proposal from this history: expansions of limited liability seem to have coincided and contributed to the booms in the cycle of financial crises in that country that occurred every 10 years in that country.  The bad news: unlimited liability for shareholders does not seem to have staved off crises and likely contributed to the contagion in the Panic of 1825.]

The CU Business Law Colloquium also heard from Gordon Smith (BYU), Jim Cox (Duke), Sharon Matusik (Colorado – Business), Afra Afsharipour (UC Davis), Jesse Fried (Harvard), and Brian Broughman (Indiana).  Their papers are not yet up on ssrn.

Permalink | Corporate Governance| Corporate Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Legal Scholarship | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 11, 2014
Program for the AALS Mid-year Meeting on Corporate and Financial Law
Posted by Erik Gerding

After the jump, is the program for the AALS Mid-year Meeting on Corporate and Financial Law in Washington, D.C. from June 7-9.  If you register (site restricted) and attend, make sure to stay until the fireworks at the very last panel!

Program

 

Saturday, June 7, 2014

 

4:00 - 8:00 p.m.

AALS Registration                                                                                                   

 

6:00 - 7:30 p.m.

AALS Reception

 

Sunday, June 8, 2014

 

8:45 - 9:00 a.m.

Welcome                                                                                                          

Judith Areen, AALS Executive Director, Chief Executive Officer

 

Introduction

Joan M. Heminway, Chair, Planning Committee for AALS Workshop on Blurring Boundaries in Financial and Corporate Law and The University of Tennessee College of Law

 

9:00 - 9:30 a.m.

Keynote

Donald C. Langevoort, Georgetown University Law Center

 

9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Sessions on Research

 

Recent appraisals of the state of legal education have raised questions about the value of legal scholarship.  Yet, most law scholars believe that their work contributes meaningfully to important theoretical and policy-oriented discussions-including those involving financial and corporate law.  What is the relevance and overall value of legal scholarship in financial and corporate law in an era of blurred and blurring boundaries? What methodologies, forms of scholarly output, and publication venues most effectively and efficiently reach the target audiences for financial and corporate law scholarship?  This segment of the program focuses on these and other questions relating to research and writing in financial and corporate law as a matter of current and desired future practice. 

 

Specifically, the segment features a two-part approach to questions involving research in the context of unclear substantive demarcations in financial and corporate law.  The first part is a plenary panel discussion, and the second part is a series of small-group networking sessions.  More detailed descriptions of each are set forth below.

 

9:30 -10:45 a.m.

Research Plenary Panel

Robert P. Bartlett, III, University of California, Berkeley School of Law

Jill E. Fisch, University of Pennsylvania Law School

Claire A. Hill, University of Minnesota Law School

 

The prevalence of economic analysis is one element that unites legal scholarship across the many areas of business law.  Scholars in the various business law fields of endeavor (e.g., business associations, securities regulation, financial institutions, insurance) have used other disciplines and methodological approaches to a far lesser extent.  Do we have the right mix of interdisciplinarity to most effectively respond to current challenges involving financial and corporate law?  How, if at all, do traditional legal scholars re-tool to address any perceived need for interdisciplinary research that engages academic disciplines outside their areas of expertise (or areas of expertise in which their knowledge is superficial or outdated)?

 

This panel explores the capacity of a variety of methodologies and disciplines to enrich the study of financial and corporate law in an era of blurring substantive and regulatory boundaries.  The panel also addresses cutting edge questions and controversies regarding blurring boundaries in particular research traditions.  The panel comprises scholars who use different quantitative and qualitative analytical methods in their work.   The panel is designed to allow these scholars to discuss techniques and tools they use and to yield valuable insights into questions that cut across financial and corporate law, such as the behavior of consumers, investors, financial institutions (and the individuals who work inside them), lawyers, and regulators.

 

10:45 - 11:00 a.m.                                                                                         

Refreshment Break                                                                                       

 

11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Research Small Group /Networking Sessions

Michelle M. Harner, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Christine Hurt, University of Illinois College of Law
Anne M. Tucker, Georgia State University College of Law

Others to be announced.

 

This part of the program is designed to offer participants the opportunity to share their thoughts on blurred lines in financial regulation research.  Topics will vary from session to session but may include:  how individual research approaches and methods have changed and are changing; how law academics keep up with emerging research approaches and methods-e.g., where research content is now found and how it is processed; whether (and, if so, how) individuals with different substantive law and research backgrounds "talk" to each other to help bridge gaps; and what optimal work product outcomes look like as substantive and regulatory lines continue to blur. Facilitators will report out the ideas from their sessions.

 

12:00 - 1:30 p.m.                                                                                             

AALS Luncheon

Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator for Massachusetts (Invited)

               

1:45 - 5:00 p.m.

Teaching Sessions

 

Associated legal and regulatory challenges and changes force us to reconsider our pedagogy and the business law curriculum in very fundamental ways.  Structuring courses and choosing and employing effective teaching tools are, of course, part of the discussion.  But teaching financial and corporate law in an era of blurring boundaries also engages larger issues, such as the role of different types of courses (e.g., clinics, practicums, externships, field placements, simulation courses) and pedagogies in teaching business law courses. Also important are pedagogical methods geared to develop the financial literacy, numeracy, and professional values that students concentrating in financial and corporate law should have when they graduate from law school.  Finally, it seems that it would be beneficial to address the value for law students, if any, in joint degree (e.g., JD/MBA) and advanced degree (LLM, Masters in Law, Juris Masters, etc.) programs and the overall place and prominence of financial and corporate law in the current and future program of legal education in the United States.  The program is designed to involve a significant amount of "show and tell," rather than predominantly focusing on traditional academic presentations.

 

1:45 - 3:00 p.m.

Teaching Plenary Panel

William A. Birdthistle, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology
James A. Fanto, Brooklyn Law School
Edward J. Janger, Brooklyn Law School
John Henry Schlegel, University at Buffalo Law School
David A. Westbrook, University at Buffalo Law School

 

This panel, populated with presenters culled from a call for proposals, explores the challenges and opportunities for legal educators in an era of blurring substantive and regulatory boundaries.  A range of possible teaching methods and tools can assist in the task.  But difficult questions exist as to how to best use these methods and tools in individual courses and across the curriculum-in and outside business law teaching.  Course selection and curricular options (including those external to the standard Juris Doctor courses and curriculum) deserve important consideration at both the individual (student and faculty) and institutional levels.  The panel is designed to allow academics specializing in financial and corporate law to discuss these and other issues relevant to educating business law students in light of blurring financial and corporate law boundaries.

 

3:00 - 3:15 p.m.                                                                                               

Refreshment Break                                                                                       

 

3:15 - 5:00 p.m.                                                                                              

Teaching Concurrent Sessions

 

This portion of the program features concurrent sessions on teaching led by law faculty chosen from a call for proposals.  Each session has a different topical focus and is offered twice-once in each breakout period.  Accordingly, each attendee has the opportunity to attend two sessions, each on a different topic.  These sessions are designed to involve significant interaction between the selected discussion leader and the attendees.  

 

3:15 - 3:45 p.m.

Concurrent Sessions

 

Consumer Protection Clinicas as a Site for Blurring Boundaries

Bryan L. Adamson, Seattle University School of Law


Teaching Banking Law

Mehrsa Baradaran, University of Georgia School of Law


A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Real Estate Investment and Finance Law

Andrea Boyack, Washburn University School of Law


Teaching the Federal Reserve in Law School: Crossing Disciplines, Paradigms and Vantage Points

Timothy A. Canova, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center


From the Balance Sheet to Beta: A Hands-On Approach to Teaching Accounting & Finance Concepts

Virginia Harper Ho, University of Kansas School of Law   

 

 

3:45 - 4:15 p.m.

Repeat of Concurrent Session Presentations

 

4:15 - 5:00 p.m.

Report Out

 

5:30 - 6:30 p.m.                                                                                                       

AALS Reception

 

Monday, June 9, 2014

 

9:00 - 10:15 a.m.                                                  

Complexity Plenary Panel

Henry T. Hu, The University of Texas School of Law   

Kristin N. Johnson, Seton Hall University School of Law

Tom C.W. Lin, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law

Saule T. Omarova, University of North Carolina, School of Law

 

Modern financial markets, as well as the firms that operate within these markets, have become increasingly complex over the last several decades.  This trend is attributable to various developments, including the accelerating sophistication of technology, the increasing size of firms, the more heterogeneous and sophisticated needs of users of financial services, and the inevitable desire of firms to seek out regulatory gaps.  This ever-growing complexity creates a broad set of new challenges for law and regulation.  For instance, complexity may confound the efforts of regulators to monitor financial markets for systemic risk or to erect rules to prevent or mitigate that risk.  Similarly, it can frustrate the capacity of law to promote more informed consumer and investor protection tools such as disclosure or financial literacy education. Increasing complexity also raises new challenges about the optimal modes of regulation: according to some, it demands greater reliance on regulatory approaches such as self-governance or "new governance," while others argue that it may counter-intuitively necessitate simpler and blunter rules.   Finally, market and firm complexity complicates the targets of regulation, which now consists not only of banks, insurers and broker-dealers, but also shadow banks, hedge funds, and participants in derivatives markets.

 

10:15 - 10:30 a.m.                                                                                         

Refreshment Break                                                                                       

 

10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

 

Modern Regulatory Approaches

 

Historically, scholars have studied law and regulation within a particular substantive area, such as banking, corporate, insurance, or securities regulation. However, modern regulatory approaches frequently require knowledge of multiple topics and raise challenges that cut across different areas of legal study. These two concurrent sessions will feature four approaches to understanding modern regulation, each led by a scholar whose work has been focused in the area. 

 

Regulatory arbitrage and cost-benefit analysis are issues that cut across many areas of modern regulation. Many costly rules create incentives for parties to transact in ways that are economically equivalent, but lead to differential regulatory treatment. Both regulators and courts increasingly are required to, and do, use cost-benefit analysis to justify new regulation.

 

10:30 - 11:15 a.m.

Modern Regulatory Approaches Concurrent Session #1

Jordan M. Barry, University of San Diego School of Law (confirmed)

 

Modern Regulatory Approaches Concurrent Session #2

Yoon-Ho Alex Lee, University of Southern California Gould School of Law (confirmed)

 

11:15 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Modern Regulatory Approaches Concurrent Session #1

Adam J. Levitin, Georgetown University Law Center (confirmed)

 

Modern Regulatory Approaches Concurrent Session #2

Dana Brakman Reiser, Brooklyn Law School (confirmed)

 

12:00 - 1:30 p.m.                                                                                             

AALS Luncheon                                                                                           

Daniel K. Tarullo, Governor, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC

                                      

1:30 - 3:00 p.m.                                                                                              

New Frontiers: Innovation, Competition and Collaboration in International Financial Markets

Wulf Kaal, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Eric J. Pan, Associate Director, Office of International Affairs, U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission, Washington, DC

Roberta Romano, Yale Law School

 

Innovation and the mobility of capital have changed global financial markets in profound and consequential ways. Advances in technology and developments in the infrastructure of financial markets have engendered new levels of interconnectivity. The creation of new financial products, the increasing prominence of market participants such as private equity and hedge funds, and the birth of complex trading strategies (namely algorithmic and high-frequency trading); have permanently altered the landscape of financial markets. Operating in this new frontier, significant financial institutions face historically unparalleled vulnerabilities. The financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated the broad range of concerns that challenge government efforts to regulate financial markets.

 

Responding to the crisis, authorities propose a diverse array of regulatory reforms. For example, the U.S. Congress and regulators have adopted an aggressive and extraterritorial policy governing domestic and international over-the-counter derivatives, creating a Financial Stability Oversight Council and articulating formal processes to address the insolvency of an international financial market conglomerate. In addition, the highly debated and not-yet-finalized Volker Rule promises to reduce excessive risk taking by systemically important financial institutions and minimize the likelihood of future crises. Other countries' proposed solutions take a different tack, adopting Vickers- and Liikanen-style "ring-fencing" policies. The trend toward diversity in regulatory approaches overshadows central bankers' collaborative efforts to craft, implement and enforce the third round of Basel accords.

 

The debate over uniformity or diversity in regulation provides a forum for evaluating the merits of these various regulatory approaches and the domestic and international actors who inform the discussion. Questions arising from the debate explore the value of efforts to adopt uniform regulatory approaches; the contributions of international regulatory bodies and trade organizations such as the BIS, the G-20, and IOSCO; the benefits and shortcomings of microprudential policies governing banking institutions; and the limits that political accountability and legitimacy pose for each of the governments whose regulatory policies may heighten or mitigate the potential for future financial crises.

 

3:00 - 3:15 p.m.                                                                                              

Refreshment Break

 

3:15 - 4:45 p.m.                                                                                              

Political Dynamics Plenary Panel

Erik F. Gerding, University of Colorado School of Law
M. Todd Henderson, The University of Chicago, The Law School
Steven Ramirez, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Hillary A. Sale, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law    

 

Financial and corporate regulation no longer fits within the comfortable regulatory silos so familiar to scholars of previous decades.  The efforts to design and implement new regulatory structures after the financial crisis are taking place in sometimes unfamiliar political cross-currents that reshape prior theories.   This plenary panel will address the political dynamics of financial and corporate law in contexts framed by a series of important questions: Have financial and corporate law become more political (e.g. the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act within 20 months of each other)?  Have the roles of courts, legislators, the president, and independent agencies changed and what should those roles be, (with the Citizens United, Business Roundtable, and American Petroleum cases as recent relevant examples)?  How has the blurred world of financial and corporate law changed? Who are the constituencies to be considered in evaluating these laws? For example, whose primacy should be our focus and is there new space for occupiers, crowds, and those pursuing social benefit enterprises?  Does globalization stress our traditional reliance on state regulation and complicate our existing theories of political economy?

 

Permalink | AALS| Corporate Law| Finance| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 10, 2014
Breathing Life into Living Wills
Posted by Erik Gerding

For your weekend reading pleasure: Thomas Hoenig, Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, made a speech this week arguing that the living wills provisions in Title I of Dodd-Frank were critical to ending financial bailouts.  He concludes:

"In theory, Title I provisions to resolve these firms make the system safer.  In practice, it will be the industry and its regulators that make the law work."

Sing It loud!  

But calling on industry and policymakers to make the law work points to the biggest problem with (arguably) the only really novel policy solution in post-crisis financial reform: where are the incentives for financial firms to get their living wills right?  Unfortunately, we might not know if living wills work until firms actually fail.  One fascinating item I learned in Mehrsa Baradaran's great forthcoming article Regulation by Hypothetical: the living wills that the largest Wall Street banks have produced appear to all have been drafted by the same team at Davis Polk.  Judge for yourself how helpful these recipes will be for regulators attempting to untangle a large failed financial colossus.

Permalink | Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

May 09, 2014
Lawyers, Econs and Money: HBR on Economists versus Lawyers on the Federal Reserve Board
Posted by Erik Gerding

Peter Conti-Brown wrote an interesting take over at Politico on the constitutional problems with so many vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board.  Which leads to the question: who should fill the empty slots?  What sorts of backgrounds should they have?  Some in Congress have called for representation by community bankers.  Recently, at the Harvard Business Review site, Justin Fox had an interesting historical take on how, over decades, economists have gradually taken over the most important spots on the Federal  Reserve Board (i.e. the Chair and membership on the Open Market Committee), while the representation of lawyers has declined.

It provides food for thought.  First, what value do lawyers add to the Fed leadership?  I agree with the quoted remarks of Alan Blinder that it is hard to conceive of a chair without an economics PhD given the highly technical data coming from Fed staff.  However, lawyers can clearly contribute mightily to the regulatory mission of the Fed, an area that critics charge was neglected under Greenspan in favor of monetary policy (see here for one critique).

One retort is that this is not the area on which the Open Market Committee focuses.  Even so – I have argued (in this article and in my book) that changes in the law and financial regulation often have an enormous monetary impact.  Consider how regulatory arbitrage and regulatory changes midwifed the birth of the shadow banking system, which had a profound impact on monetary policy in the years before and during the crisis.  Scholars (like Margaret Blair and me) argue that the fact that monetary expansion occurred through regulatory means rather than traditional “channels” (like central banks buying and selling bonds) may have blinded many macroeconomic policymakers from realizing that a bubble was forming and what was driving it.  The upshot: if legal change can have monetary impacts, then lawyers can help understand when that change is occurring.  We need better coordination of prudential regulation and monetary policy-making.

Second, and more provocatively, Fox’s article points out how the real drop in representation among the Fed’s Open Market Committee comes in members without a graduate economics degree, J.D., or MBA.  Others have recognized this trend before.  Some, like Tim Canova, have called for a return to the Fed of the ‘30’s and ‘40’s, which they see as much more democratically accountable. 

Even if you don’t agree with that position, consider the parallels to the Supreme Court, which has also been criticized for having an increasingly homogenized makeup in terms of professional background even while it has diversified in terms of gender.  All the current justices studied at a very small number of law schools and have a similar mix of appellate/professorial backgrounds. 

I’m sure there are other examples of powerful public bodies being homogenized professionally.  This dynamic means that some courses are, and some course will not be, served at the intellectual feast.

Permalink | Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Supreme Court | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

April 29, 2014
What Happens When You Miss Your Capital Requirement?
Posted by David Zaring

Oops, says BofA, we messed up our capital calculations.  We don't have as much money on hand for shocks or emergencies as we thought.  Since that's the principal thing that banking regulators care about, you might wonder what happens to banks who do this.  Perhaps it would be interesting to consider some alternatives, might offer a sense of what bank supervision does and doesn't involve these days.

  • The Fed could prosecute BofA executives for fraud.  Call that the securities regulator/white collar approach.  One problem, fraud must be intentional, so this would have to be not an error, but at the very least some sort of reckless accounting.  It punishes individuals in management who contributed to the fraud.
  • The Fed/FDIC could revoke their license or pull the inspectors.  This is the USDA approach.  The problem is that it is too nuclear - both of those things would shut down a bank that is far too big to fail.
  • The Fed could fine them.  This is the money laundering approach, and those fines are often imposed not just for tolerating the laundering of money, but for having inadequate controls in place to prevent it.  We may see a fine here, BofA is pretty much saying that it had inadequate controls in place by acknowledging that it did the calculations wrong to the tune of billions of dollars.
  • Or the Fed could do what the Fed is, for now, doing.  It is suspending any dividend increases by the bank until it submits an accurate account of the state of its capital reserves, and has that account approved by the agency as sufficient.  This is a somewhat new thing in high level banking oversight - punish the shareholders, thereby encouraging them to monitor management. Does it work?  It is perhaps a little untested, although suspending capital distributions has been a tool used by the FDIC on the sorts of distressed small banks that were its old stock in trade.  Seeing that tool applied to Citi and now BofA, however, is a dfferent thing altogether.  It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

April 16, 2014
AALS Mid-year Meeting on Corporate and Financial Law
Posted by Erik Gerding

A friendly notice about the AALS-Mid-Year meeting on "Blurring Boundaries"...

The AALS Workshop on Blurring Boundaries of Financial and Corporate Law will be held June 7-9 in Washington, DC.

The workshop is designed to explore the various ways in which the lines separating distinct, identifiable areas of theory, policy, and doctrine in business law have begun to break down.  The workshop sessions will focus on: research; teaching; complexity; modern regulatory approaches; innovation; competition; and collaboration in international financial markets; and political dynamics.  A workshop objective is to bring together law faculty representing a variety of financial and corporate disciplines, scholarship traditions and pedagogical practices and perspectives. 

The workshop provides a unique opportunity for faculty members to make connections between their primary fields and other fields in financial and corporate law, making it relevant to a broad spectrum of law scholars and teachers.  Law faculty in all business fields should find the workshop useful to their scholarship and teaching.

If you’re interested in attending, check out the program and register online.  

Permalink | AALS| Conferences| Corporate Law| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
July 2014
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Miscellaneous Links