Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

Reviews negative as U.S. regulators unveil Volcker rule

Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker

TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. regulators unveiled a ban on Wall Street banks' trading for their own profit, but the long-awaited Volcker rule proposal was so complex that banks blasted it as unworkable and consumer groups dismissed it as too weak.

The rule, required by last year's Dodd-Frank financial oversight law, is aimed at avoiding a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial crisis by curbing excessive risk-taking.

It has been difficult for the government to craft a rule that reins in Wall Street while protecting the trades that big banks execute on behalf of clients.

Story continues below advertisement

Regulators are giving the public until Jan. 13, 2012, to comment on the rule. That is more time than expected, and could result in more pressure to change elements of the rule.

The proposal includes more than 350 questions that regulators want interested parties to weigh in on, particularly on how the government should write exemptions that allow banks to still make markets for their customers and hedge risk in their portfolios.

"Only in today's regulatory climate could such a simple idea become so complex, generating a rule whose preamble alone is 215 pages, with 381 footnotes to boot," American Bankers Association chief executive Frank Keating said in a statement.

"How can banks comply with a rule that complicated, and how can regulators effectively administer it in a way that doesn't make it harder for banks to serve their customers and further weaken the broader economy?" he asked.

On the other side of the issue, the consumer coalition Americans for Financial Reform said regulators warped a simple ban into a weak crackdown that is weighted toward preserving banks' flexibility.

"Unfortunately, the proposal issued today falls well short of what the Volcker Rule could and should achieve," AFR said.

The Federal Reserve and other bank regulators acknowledged in the proposal that it will be challenging for the government to identify "proprietary trading" that will be banned under the rule.

Story continues below advertisement

The proposal said drawing the line between prohibited and permitted trading "often involves subtle distinctions that are difficult both to describe comprehensively within regulation and to evaluate in practice."

The rule is expected to have the most impact on large banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, and could shave off billions of dollars in annual revenues.

The Volcker rule, named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker who championed the measure, aims to prevent banks from making risky trades by prohibiting short-term trading for their own profit in securities, derivatives and other financial products.

It will also prohibit banks from investing in, or sponsoring, hedge funds or private equity funds.

The idea behind the rule is to prevent banks that enjoy some sort of government safety net, such as deposit insurance on customer accounts or access to Fed money, from using that backstop to make money for themselves.

Industry groups have argued for broad exemptions for trades done to make markets for customers, and for trades used to hedge against certain risks in the banks' portfolios.

Story continues below advertisement

The proposal includes both types of exemptions, but it is difficult to determine how they will work in practice.

At a minimum, the proposed rule would increase costs and discourage firms from making markets in securities, said Dwight Smith, a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, a law firm which works with investment banks.

"It calls for some very precise management of that business and some very detailed record-keeping," said Mr. Smith. "It becomes very cumbersome."

The impact of the proposed rule will likely be discussed with investors as banks host quarterly earnings calls starting Thursday with JPMorgan.

Barclays Capital analyst Jason Goldberg said in an Oct. 7 research report that executives would be well-served to show investors how they will cope with the Volcker rule restrictions, with bank stocks already beaten down this year.

Regulators on Tuesday acknowledged that controversy has surrounded the Volcker rule from the outset.

"The proposed rule has been noted as long, the issues are complex, so I think we made the right decision in allowing the full 90 days for comment," said John Walsh, acting director of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees the nation's largest banks.

Mr. Walsh spoke at a meeting of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. board which agreed on Tuesday to put the proposal out for comment.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is due to discuss the Volcker rule proposal at a meeting on Wednesday. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has yet to announce how it will proceed.

The proposal released by bank regulators on Tuesday is largely similar to a draft of the rule leaked last week that received a mixed reaction from industry groups.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, for instance, raised concerns about whether the exemption for market-making trades is too narrow.

Randy Snook, a SIFMA executive vice-president, said on Tuesday that financial firms need to be able to provide capital and liquidity to markets.

"There is a real legitimate concern here that everything gets cast as prop trading. This isn't just about speculative activity, in our mind," Mr. Snook said.

A note released on Monday by Bernstein Research said, based on the draft, that the rule "will have a very negative impact on the business models of fixed-income trading for Wall Street brokers." Mr. Bernstein estimates the impact could be 25 per cent less in revenues.

To stop foreign-owned banks reaping a windfall or skirting the rule, prohibited trades cannot be conducted if a party to the transaction is a U.S. resident or a bank employee involved in the transaction is physically located in the United States.

Under the Dodd-Frank law, the Volcker rule goes into effect on July 21, 2012.

Report an error
As of December 20, 2017, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this resolved by the end of January 2018. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to