New York Fed Chair Stephen Friedman Resigns: About Time

The chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve of New York, Stephen Friedman, resigned today — a resignation doubtlessly timed to coincide with the much bigger news of the day, the release of the stress test results.  (I’ll get back to those in a bit).  Though he had earlier announced his intention to resign at the end of the year, he moved the date up as criticisms of his overlapping role at the Fed and on the board of Goldman Sachs have mounted.

The Wall Street Journal ran an A-1 story this week that started thus:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York shaped Washington’s response to the financial crisis late last year, which buoyed Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other Wall Street firms. Goldman received speedy approval to become a bank holding company in September and a $10 billion capital injection soon after.

During that time, the New York Fed’s chairman, Stephen Friedman, sat on Goldman’s board and had a large holding in Goldman stock, which because of Goldman’s new status as a bank holding company was a violation of Federal Reserve policy.

The New York Fed asked for a waiver, which, after about 2½ months, the Fed granted. While it was weighing the request, Mr. Friedman bought 37,300 more Goldman shares in December. They’ve since risen $1.7 million in value.

Mr. Friedman also was overseeing the search for a new president of the New York Fed, an officer who has a critical role in setting monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. The choice was a former Goldman executive.

The WSJ has been putting up new pieces every day as criticism of Friedman’s moves has mounted.  He’s not a bad target.  He’s purchased more than 50,000 new shares in Goldman since the bank came under Fed regulation last fall, and never mentioned any of those purchases to the NYFed.  His claims that he saw “no conflict whatsoever in owning shares” is at best self-deluding and more likely disingenuous.  Whether or not Friedman was involved in day-to-day decision making at the Fed — and his spear-heading of the search for a new president certainly makes him seem very involved — as a Class C director, appointed to represent the public, holding shares in any bank or bank holding company seems like a dangerous contradiction.

Now, it’s true that Friedman wasn’t initially in conflict with Fed policy — only when Goldman became a bank-holding company, instead of an investment bank, did he come into explicit conflict with the rules, and at that point the NYFed lawyers sought a waiver.  In January, they concluded he hadn’t broken any internal rules — and even in the statement released by the NYFed, the general counsel says “these purchases did not violate any Federal Reserve statute, rule or policy.”

Which makes it seem all the more important that those statutes, rules, and policies get changed. 

Though Friedman showed some terrible judgment here, the other villain of this story is whoever in the Washington, D.C. Fed offices decided to grant the waiver that allowed Friedman to continue in his conflicting role.  The defense that the NYFed has mustered so far for keeping Friedman around is that his leadership was necessary because the NYFed was already functioning without a president, after Tim Geithner became the Treasury nominee in November.  If that was true — if Friedman was so valuable to the company — then the company should have worked harder to convince Friedman to sell of his shares and resign from Goldman.  Instead, they chose to grant a waiver to a rule that, really, is a pretty reasonable rule, one that’s built to arm against exactly the kinds of conflicted decisions that seem to have been made here.

The WSJ reports that many of the other 11 regional Fed banks already have or are supportive of changing and clarifying the rules.  I hope that’s true.  Until then, it falls upon the Wall Street Journals of the world to find this stuff out and push for change — and we may be destined to see the resolution of the problem coming, as it did in this case, too late.

Small Wonder: A Terrible Day for Tim Geithner

Felix Salmon had a nice post today suggesting that major U.S. banks holding Chrysler’s debt are willing to let the company go into bankruptcy instead of taking a haircut on their debt in part because there’s no real way the public could think less of them.  Being the automatic villain gives one a certain freedom to be horrible, and J.P. Morgan Chase and friends certainly find themselves there.

What this made me wonder is, at what point will Tim Geithner hit the so-hated-he-can-do-whatever stage?

I mean, this has been a totally sucky week to be Geithner.  Consider he went into the weekend with Paul Krugman’s “it’s gonna get so much worse” column and Rachel Maddow having invited the “Hey Paul Krugman” singer onto her show (for the 5 people who hadn’t already heard him sing, “Timothy Geithner, he’s like some little weasel,” via the Internet).  Yesterday, he had the hey-guys, cut-your-budgets Cabinet meeting (check out the body language here, too — that’s Geithner slumped next to Biden).  At this point, I’m not sure the man could buy friends (though I have no doubt at least one commenter will say he’s tried).  Just take the last 24 hours:

• The Special Inspector General issued his report, which initially made news for saying that, contrary to the Secretary’s earlier assertions, firms who wanted to participate on either side of the Public-Private Investment Partnerships would be subject to compensation limits.
• Then it made news because, at The Economist, that sounds like the end of the PPIP.
• Then it made news because there are already 20 fraud cases being investigated.
• Then Felix Salmon pointed out that, within the report, there’s open speculation that it could encourage out-right criminal organization money-laundering schemes.
• The IMF also released its Global Financial Stability Report today, and said that bank losses are over $4 trillion, with more than half of that originating in the U.S.  Oh, and we’re going to need substantial additional investment to recapitalize banks, and may need to nationalize some at least temporarily.  And soon.
• All of this before the real fun started: Geithner testified before Elizabeth Warren’s Congressional Oversight Panel.  You may remember her as the woman who made Jon Stewart feel better last week, or the one who released the highly critical — and commendable, at that — report on the Treasury’s plans so far.  Wanna guess how that meeting went down?  Let Andrew Leonard summarize:

The pattern is now sufficiently well established to be definitive. The treasury secretary appears before a congressional committee, and is asked tough, detailed questions by members of both parties. He invariably compliments and thanks the questioner for a “thoughtful” and “important” question, and then proceeds to answer in vague generalities, rarely committing himself to specifics.

I’ve watched or pored over the transcripts of almost all of Geithner’s testimony before Congress, and it’s getting harder and harder to make a case in defense of his brief tenure. Tuesday’s hearing, before the Congressional Oversight Panel empowered by Congress to watch over the TARP program, ranks as one of his least satisfying performances so far. 

(I would say it was sort of like watching the robot from Small Wonder face off with Minerva McGonagall from Harry Potter — you start off rooting for both sides, but by the end, you just want McGonagall to put the robot out of her repetitve, wide-eyed misery).

• The stock market did rally a bit over Geithner’s assertion that “the vast majority of banks have more capital than they need to be considered well capitalized by their regulators.”  That sounds like great news, until you realize he never said that (he skipped those pages, somewhat dramatically, in his testimony).
• Also, even if he had said that, it was meaningless and earned, again, bafflement and concern (and use of the word “ominous” in the first paragraph) from Paul Krugman.
• Finally, The Wall Street Journal ran an interview with Geithner (“Geithner Weighs Bank Repayments“) where he said he’s considering whether to let banks repay their TARP debt early or not.
• Finance blogger Nemo and a reader point out that, no, he can’t do that — he has to let banks pay the money back whenever they want to.  Strike… what? 56 or so? for Geithner.

It’s those last two points that bring us to the importance of the villain question.  The two banks currently talking about repayment are Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase.  Paying back TARP funds would free these two from compensation limits — present and looming — and also make them look strong and solvent.  JPMC CEO Jamie Dimon has called TARP assistance a “scarlet letter,” and he’s looking to shed it as quickly as possible.  This would possibly inspire further investment in these banks and certainly encourage concentration of power into their hands.

Which is partly why the Treasury Department isn’t keen on just letting them repay so quickly.  Banks shedding TARP funds could make other banks want to jump ship — banks whose life-vests aren’t properly inflated.  So you could see Bank of America trying to pay back TARP, and either failing after payback, or failing to payback at all — and either way looking so weak as to inspire (who thought it was possible) less confidence than even now.  Which would, of course, benefit those who do survive the leap — probably a big part of the JPMC/Goldman dream right now.

In fact, the only reason that a firm wouldn’t leave TARP right now is a desire NOT to piss off the U.S. Treasury Department.  It’s in their individual interests to run, even while it might be in the interest of the entire system for them to stay a while.  So let me ask you this: Is Tim Geithner someone you’d want mad at you?  Does a real villain lurk somewhere within the Small Wonder facade, just waiting for the day when it no longer matters what Wall Street thinks — and if so, was today that day?  Does he have enough power, inside or out of the Treasury, to make things more uncomfortable for these banks than they already are?

My guess?  If there’s pressure to be brought to bear, it will have to be done by the President — and if that’s the case, Geithner’s days at the grown-up table are going to be limited.