Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Did the End of the Investment Banks Cause the Latest Sell-Off?
Robert Peston thinks that much of the recent sell-off can be attributed to the decision by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to convert into banks:
It was caused, to a large extent, by an exceptional and unprecedented shrinkage in the prime brokerage industry, which in turn led to a serious reduction in the volume of credit extended to hedge funds, which in turn forced hedge funds to sell assets, especially those perceived as higher risk...
Morgan Stanley and Goldman are - by far - the biggest prime brokers, with Morgan Stanley the number one.
But as banks, they're prevented by regulators from lending as much relative to their capital resources as they had been as securities firms.
So the US authorities should have known - and presumably did know - that by allowing Morgan Stanley and Goldman to become banks they were in effect forcing a serious contraction in the hedge-fund industry, which in turn would lead to sales of all manner of assets held by hedge funds and precipitate turmoil throughout the financial economy.
I'd love to see some datapoints here. Is it true that the prime-brokerage operations of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have been shrinking, even as competitors such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns have gone bust? It might be the case that the total amount they've lent out to hedge funds has declined, even if their client count is rising. And I'm sure that there's been a lot of pressure both internally and externally for those shops to derisk and deleverage.
But the fact is that as soon as the investment banks started getting access to the Fed's money, they were bound to become much more tightly regulated -- whether they became banks or not. Has that process been sped up by their move to become banks? Frankly, I doubt it -- no one at Treasury or at the SEC is interested in giving Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs a hard time right now over the fact that they don't immediately conform to all the requirements of banks. These things take a certain amount of time, and everybody understands that.
But are hedge funds being forced to sell assets because their prime brokers are derisking? That's entirely possible. But I'd be more convinced if I was shown an actual instance of it happening.






