Financial Firms

Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland Settle & Others for More than $2.3B with European Union Over Interbank Offered Rates

Published on: December 24, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Deutsche Bank (DB) has announced that as part of a collective settlement, it will pay $992,329,000 to settle investigations involving interbank offered rates, including probes into the trading of Euro interest rate derivatives and interest rate derivatives for the Yen.

Also paying fines as part of the collective settlement are Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS) which will pay $535,173,000 and Society General SA (SLE), which will pay $610,454,000, and three others. In total, the financial firms will pay a record $2.3 billion.

The fines are for manipulating the Euribor and the Yen London interbank offered rate. EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said that regulators would continue to look into other cases linked to currency trading and Libor. Also related to these probes, Citigroup (C) has been fined $95,811,100, while JPMorgan (JPM) is paying $108M. Because of Citigroup’s cooperation into this matter, it avoided paying an additional $74.6 million. The two firms reportedly admitted that they were part of the Yen Libor financial derivatives cartel.

FDIC Sued by JPMorgan Chase in $1B Securities Case Involving Washington Mutual Purchase & Mortgage-Backed Securities

Published on: December 23, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is suing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for over $1 billion dollars related to the bank’s purchase of Washington Mutual (WMIH). The financial firm said that the FDIC did not honor its duties per the purchase agreement.

When Washington Mutual suffered the biggest bank failure in our nation’s history during the financial crisis in 2008, FDIC became its receiver and brokered the sale of assets. JPMorgan, which made the purchase for $1.9 billion, says that the FDIC promised to protect or indemnify the bank from liabilities. Regulators had encouraged the firm to buy Washington Mutual hoping this would help bring back stability to the banking system.

Since then, however, contends JPMorgan, the FDIC has refused to acknowledge mortgage-backed securities claims by investors and the government against the firm. The bank says that the cases should have been made against the receivership instead. (In its lawsuit, JPMorgan says there are enough assets in the receivership to cover a settlement with mortgage companies Freddie Mac (FMCC) and Fannie Mae (FNMA) and other claims, such as a slip and fall personal injury case involving a Washington Mutual branch.) Meantime, the FDIC maintains that JPMorgan is the one who should be accountable for any liabilities from its acquisition of Washington Mutual.

New Jersey Files Securities Lawsuit Against Credit Suisse Over $10B in MBS Sales

Published on: December 20, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman is suing a Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) for securities fraud. The state’s regulator contends that the bank misrepresented the risks on over $10B in home loan-backed securities.

According to the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, Credit Suisse is accused of failing to disclose that loan originators it employed had records of delinquencies and defaults and that some had even been suspended from working with the bank. The state’s attorney general claims that even though Credit Suisse’s traders were unwilling to hold the securities on the books of the bank, the latter was selling them to customers. Also, alleges the complaint, the despite receiving tens of millions of dollars in reimbursement from loan originators for the faulty loans, Credit Suisse did not give the money to the trusts that owned the loans.

A representative for Credit Suisse says the mortgage securities case is meritless. The bank is facing a similar lawsuit filed against it by New York’s attorney general.

The Volcker Rule May Already Be Affecting Financial Markets & The Economy

Published on: December 17, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to The Wall Street Journal, it’s just been a week since regulators approved the Volcker Rule and already investors and financial institutions are looking for new ways to finance municipal bond investments. The Volcker rule limits how much risk federally insured depository institutions can take, prohibiting proprietary trading, setting up obstacles for banks that take part in market timing, and tightening up on compensation agreements that used to serve as incentive for high-risk trading.

Now, says Forbes, Wall Street and its firms are undoubtedly trying to figure out how to get around the rule via loopholes, exemptions, new ways of interpreting the rule, etc. (One reason for this may be that how much executives are paid is dependent upon the amount they make from speculative trading.) The publication says that banks are worried that the Volcker Rule could cost them billions of dollars.

For example, with tender-option bond transactions, hedge funds, banks, and others employ short-terming borrowings to pay for long-term muni bonds. The intention is to make money off of the difference in interest they pay lenders and what they make on the bonds. While tender-option bonds make up just a small section of the $3.7 trillion muni debt market, it includes debt that has been popular with Eaton Vance (EV), Oppenheimer Funds, and others.

Merrill Lynch Settles with SEC Over CDO Disclosures for Almost $132M

Published on: December 16, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. (MER) will pay $131.8M to settle charges involving allegedly faulty derivatives disclosures. The regulator claims that the firm, which is the largest broker-dealer by client assets, misled investors about certain structured debt products before the economic crisis. By settling, Merrill is not denying or agreeing to the allegations. Also, the brokerage firm was quick to note that the matter for dispute occurred before Bank of America (BAC) acquired it.

According to the Commission, in 2006 and 2007 Merrill Lynch did not tell investors that Magnetar Capital impacted the choice of collateral that was behind specific debt products. The hedge fund purportedly hedged stock positions by shorting against Norma CDO I Ltd. and Octans I CDO Ltd., which are two collateral debt obligations that the firm was selling to customers.

The SEC contends that Merrill used misleading collateral to market these CDO investments. According to Division of Enforcement co-director George Canellos, the materials depicted an independent process for choosing collateral that benefited long-term debt investors and customers did not know about the role Magnetar Capital was playing to choose the underlying portfolios.

Moody’s Reassessment of Puerto Rico Bonds Does Nothing to Relieve Investor Worries

Published on: December 14, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

One day after Moody’s Investor Service placed Puerto Rico’s general obligation bonds rating of Baa3 on review for downgrade to junk status, the credit rating agency affirmed the ratings it had earlier in the year given four banks: Banco Santander Puerto Rico, Popular Inc. and its subsidiaries, FirstBank Puerto Rico, and Doral Financial Corporation, as well as the ratings for senior bonds put out by Doral Financial and Banco Santander Puerto Rico through the Puerto Rico Industrial, Tourist, Educational, Medical and Environmental Control Facilities Financing Authority. The ratings outlook for First Bank, Popular, and Doral Financial stayed negative, as did Banco Santander Puerto Rico’s BFSR/BCA. (However, the outlook on that bank’s supported deposit and debt ratings are stable due to the bank’s affiliation with Santander Bank NA, which is a US affiliate.)

Puerto Rico, which is a major municipal bond issuer, has been close to or in recession for nearly a decade and has over $70 billion in debt. Moody’s said it is worried about the territory’s growing dependence on outside short-term debt, “weakening liquidity,” limited market access, and its poor economy. The credit rater believes that the fiscal and economic challenges that the territory continues to face will keep threatening the “health of the banking system.” Noting that the banks’ non-performing assets continue to remain negative relative to banks in the US mainland, the agency said that this could result in more losses if things don’t get better.

Unfortunately, many investors who got involved in Puerto Rico muni bonds were not apprised of the risks or could have never handled the high risks to begin with. Some investors have lost their retirement or life savings as a result.

Fannie Mae Sues UBS, Bank of America, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, & Deutsche Bank, & Others for $800M Over Libor

Published on: December 14, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Fannie Mae is suing nine banks over their alleged collusion in manipulating interest rates involving the London Interbank Offered Rate. The defendants are Bank of America (BAC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Credit Suisse, UBS (UBS), Deutsche Bank (DB), Citigroup (C), Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, & Rabobank. The US government controlled-mortgage company wants over $800M in damages.

Regulators here and in Europe have been looking into claims that a lot of banks manipulated Libor and other rate benchmarks to up their profits or seem more financially fit than they actually were. In its securities fraud lawsuit, Fannie Mae contends that the defendants made representations and promises regarding Libor’s legitimacy that were “false” and that this caused the mortgage company to suffer losses in mortgages, swaps, mortgage securities, and other transactions. Fannie May believes that its losses in interest-rate swaps alone were about $332 million.

UBS, Barclays, Rabobank, and Royal Bank of Scotland have already paid over $3.6 billion in fines to settle with regulators and the US Department of Justice to settle similar allegations. The banks admitted that they lowballed their Libor quotes during the 2008 economic crisis so they would come off as more creditworthy and healthier. Individual traders and brokers have also been charged.

Oppenheimer Told by FINRA to Pay $675,000 Fine, $246,000 Restitution over Municipal Securities Transaction Pricing, Supervisory Violations

Published on: December 12, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (OPY) must pay a $675,000 fine purportedly charging customers unfair prices in municipal securities transactions and not having a proper supervisory system in place to detect such activities. The firm must pay $246,000 in restitution, in addition to interest, to customers that were affected. The SRO is ordering David Sirianni, the head municipal securities trader at Oppenheimer, to pay a $100,000 fine and serve a 60-day suspension.

According to FINRA, from 7/1/08 through 6/30/09, Oppenheimer, via Sirianni, charged 89 customer transactions at 5.01% to 15.57% over its contemporaneous cost. (The markup was over 9.4% in over 50 of these transactions). The SRO said that it was Sirianni’s job to decide what prices the customers paid for these transactions. He was the one who bought the municipal securities for Oppenheimer, kept them in inventory, and then resold them to Oppenheimer clients.

FINRA contends that Oppenheimer should have but did not notice that customers were being charged prices that were unfair. The regulator believes it is because the firm has an inadequate supervisory system and that personnel only depended on a surveillance report showing intra-day transactions when assessing whether municipal securities transactions were fairly priced. It said that from around 2005 through the middle of 2009, sales made to some Oppenheimer customers were not included in the report or reviewed for fair pricing.

FINRA Orders J.P. Turner to Pay $707,559 in Exchange-Traded Fund Restitution to 84 Clients

Published on: December 10, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. says that J.P. Turner & Co. has to pay restitution of $707,559 to 84 clients over the sale of inverse and leveraged ETFs that were unsuitable for them, as well as for excessive mutual fund switches. The SRO says that the broker-dealer did not set up and keep up a supervisory system that was reasonable but instead oversaw inverse and leveraged ETFs the same way it did traditional ones. It also accuses the financial firm of providing inadequate training regarding ETFs. By settling, J.P. Turner is not denying or admitting to the charges.

Leveraged and Inverse Exchange Traded-Funds

Inverse and leveraged ETFs “reset” every day. They are supposed to meet their objectives daily so their performance can rapidly diverge from that of the benchmark or underlying index. Unfortunately, even if long-term index performance exhibits a gain, investors can be susceptible to substantial losses. Markets, when they are volatile, can only exacerbate the situation. Also, leveraged and inverse ETFs are not suitable for all investors.

Volcker Rule is Approved by SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, CFTC, and OCC

Published on: December 10, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Five regulatory agencies in the US have voted to approve the Volcker Rule. The measure establishes new hurdles for banks that engage in market timing and will limit compensation arrangements that previously provided incentive for high risk trading.

While the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation voted unanimously to approve the Volcker Rule, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved it in a 3-2 vote, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved it in a 3-1 vote, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s sole voting member also said yes. President Barack Obama praised the rule’s finalization. He believes it will improve accountability and create a safer financial system.

Named after ex-Federal Chairman Paul Volcker, the rule sets up guidelines that impose risk-taking limits for banks with federally insured deposits. It mandates that they show the way their hedging strategies are designed to function, as well as set up approval procedures for any diversions from these plans. Per the rule’s preamble, banks have to make sure hedges are geared to mitigate risks upon “inception” and this needs to be “based on analysis” regarding the appropriateness of strategies, hedging instruments, limits, techniques, as well as the correlation between the hedge and underlying risks.