Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

John B. "Taylor Rule" Taylor & Kenneth Scott call for a Chapter 14

Posted on 5/19/13 at 7:25 am
Posted by Doc Fenton
New York, NY
Member since Feb 2007
52698 posts
Posted on 5/19/13 at 7:25 am
As some might recall from waaay back in the day when I was having debates about fin-reg with Colonel Hapablap, this was pretty much the exact position that I took (i.e., adding a new chapter to the bankruptcy code for large financial institutions), except that my focus was more centered on the available triggering mechanisms for filing bankruptcy, whereas in this recent WSJ article, Scott & Taylor seem to be focusing more on the advantages of judicial bankruptcy vs. FDIC resolution via Dodd-Frank.

Anyway, the article (" How to Let Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Fail") is from Thursday, and I think these 4 paragraphs get to the heart of what they are trying to say:

quote:

There is a better way—and it involves adding a chapter to the federal bankruptcy code specifically for large financial institutions. A Chapter 14 would apply to all financial groups with assets over $100 billion. A specialized panel of judges and court-appointed special masters with financial expertise would oversee the proceeding, which would include all the parent's subsidiaries, including insurance and brokerage. (Under Dodd-Frank, insurance and brokerage services have to be handled separately—which adds complexity—while banks and other subsidiaries are under FDIC jurisdiction.)

A bankruptcy petition could be filed by creditors (as now) but also by the primary federal supervisor of the firm, or by a management that saw insolvency looming. The procedure to determine asset values, liabilities, sales of some lines of business, write-downs of claims, and recapitalization would take place according to the rule of law. There would be judicial hearings and creditor participation—neither of which are part of the Dodd-Frank resolution process. The strict priority rules of bankruptcy would govern (with some modifications for holders of repurchase agreements and swaps to limit their risks).

Chapter 14 would let a failing financial firm enter bankruptcy in a predictable, rules-based manner without causing disruptive spillovers in the economy. It would also permit people to continue to use the firm's financial services—just as people flew on American or United planes when those firms were in bankruptcy. The provisions also make it possible to create in bankruptcy a newly capitalized entity that would credibly provide most of the financial services the failed firm was providing before it got into trouble.

Customers would continue to do business with a financial firm after a Chapter 14 filing if they were confident the firm could meet its current obligations. That confidence would be achieved by giving post-petition creditors a high priority. In all likelihood, this priority would enable the firm to continue obtaining ample private financing—so-called debtor-in-possession financing—to provide liquidity for normal operations.
Posted by Putty
Member since Oct 2003
25486 posts
Posted on 5/20/13 at 8:37 am to
Interesting but also scary due to the unknowns. I think even the prospect of a bank's bankruptcy will send saavy depositors running for the hills. I imagine one of the very first issues that would be litigated is whether your can terminate your agreements/relationships post-petition or are compelled to leave your deposits with the bank so they can make money off of them. On the one hand, it's your money. On the other hand, the entity can't make money without using your money. No thanks.

I also think the notion that people will leave their money in a "failed" bank is a farse. It's one thing to utilize the services of United Airlines while they operate under a DIP to take a flight. It's a whole other thing to risk your financial future on a bankrupt bank while there are many other alternatives without the same degree of risk.

And the way they write DIP loan agreements in SDNY and Del, the DIP lender would probably have a superpriority security interest in your deposits.



Speaking of which, who would make a DIP of the size required to matter and why? The only thing I can envision is a loan-to-own type lender. Typical non-strategic DIP lenders are often in it for the higher returns over conventional business loans. I can't see a financial firm being able to cover that spread and remain viable.
Posted by Doc Fenton
New York, NY
Member since Feb 2007
52698 posts
Posted on 5/20/13 at 10:16 am to
Well I'm thinking more along the lines of GS, MS, & AIG, but even if you're talking about banks that do regular commercial banking, like Citigroup or JP Morgan, and now BoA too, then those names are so big that I'm willing to bet that a lot of depositors would stay during a reorganization.

Even if they didn't, I don't think saving the commercial banking unit is the biggest concern. Spin that off into something to be resolved by the FDIC if necessary, but the key thing is to keep major asset portfolios intact, rather than unwinding them in the midst of a distressed environment, as was the case with Lehman.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram