There are obviously a large set of political questions around the 700+ billion dollars of distressed assets Uncle Sam plans to hold. If you care about the politics, you’re already following in more detail than I’m going to bother providing. I do think that we need to act to stem the crisis, and that we should bang out the best deal we can before the rest of the banks in the US come falling like dominos. As Bagehot said, no bank can withstand a crisis of confidence in its ability to settle. I think that knowing how distasteful and expensive it is, and with far better things to do with the $5,000 or so it will personally cost me as a taxpayer. (That $2,300 figure is per person.) I also think that knowing how poorly this administration has done in handling crisis from 9/11 to Katrina, and how poorly it does when forced to act in a moment of crisis. (Sandy Levinson has some interesting comments at “A further Schmittian (and constitutional?) moment.”) Finally, we are not bailing out the banks at the cost of a free market in banking. We gave up on a free market in banking in 1913 or so, after J.P. Morgan (not his eponymous bank) intervened to fix the crises of 1895 and 1907.
What I did want to look at was the phrase “more regulation,” and relate it a little to information security and risk management.
US banks are already intensely regulated under an alphabet soup of laws like SOX, GLB, USA PATRIOT and BSA. They’re subject to a slew of additional contractual obligations under things like PCI-DSS and BASEL rules on capital. And that’s leaving out the operational sand which goes by the name AML.
In fact, the alphabet soup has gotten so thick that there’s an acronym for the acronyms: GRC, or Governance, Risk and Compliance. Note that two of those three aren’t about security at all: they’re about process and laws. In the executive suite, it makes perfect sense to start security with those governance and compliance risks which put the firm or its leaders at risk.
There’s only so much budget for such things. After all, every dollar you spend on GRC and security is one that you don’t return to your shareholders or take home as a bonus. And measuring the value of that spending is notoriously hard, because we don’t share data about what happens.
Just saying that measurement is hard is easy. It’s a cop out. I have (macro-scale) evidence as to how well it all works:
- Bear Stearns
- Fannie Mae
- Freddie Mac
- Lehman Borthers
- Washington Mutual
I have a theory: in competition for budget within GRC, Governance and Compliance won. They had better micro-scale evidence as to their value, and that budget was funded before Risk was allowed to think deeply about risks.
There’s obviously immediate staunching to be done, but as we come out of that phase and start thinking about what regulatory framework to build, we need to think about how to align the interests of bankers and society.
If you’d like more on these aspects, I enjoyed Bob Blakley’s “Wall Street’s Governance and Risk Management Crisis” and
Nick Leeson, “The Escape of the Bankrupt” (via Not Bad for a Cubicle. Thurston points out the irony of being lectured by Nick “Wanna buy Barings?” Leeson.)
I’m not representing my co-author Andrew in any of this, but at least as I write this, his institution remains solvent.