US banking justice - Ben Lawsky style

 
Benjamin Lawsky Benjamin Lawsky wants tougher action to make sure banks clean up their act

Another day, another major fine for a European bank.

Today, probably at the close of markets in America, BNP Paribas will become the latest bank to join the ignominious list of financial institutions hauled into the dock by US regulators for misconduct.

BNP will join HSBC (fined $2bn (£1.2bn) in December 2012 following money laundering allegations), Standard Chartered (fined $300m for breaking sanctions against Iran), Royal Bank of Scotland (fined $100m in December 2013 for similar offences) and Credit Suisse (fined $2.6bn for enabling US clients to evade taxes).

Barclays is also in the sights of the US regulators. Following its Libor fine, the bank has now been named in a lawsuit over the operations of its "dark pool", a private trading platform for institutions to deal shares.

Apart from Barclays, one name links all these cases. Benjamin Lawsky, the superintendent of the Department of Financial Services, the main New York State regulator.

Mr Lawsky is a name now high on the speed dial list of every major banking chief executive.

It was not always so. Peter Sands, the chief executive of Standard Chartered, would have been hard pressed to say much about him when allegations of American sanctions-busting were first detailed in a lawsuit compiled by Mr Lawsky.

The US media knew more about the allegations and the man behind them than Britain's fifth-largest bank.

Which might tell us more about Standard Chartered than American journalism.

'Heads roll'

Mr Lawsky's approach is very different from European regulators. Evidence is published and incendiary claims detailed.

Mr Lawsky has also made it clear that fining institutions is not enough. "Corporations are a legal fiction. You have to deter bad individual conduct within corporations," he said in an interview with The Financial Times in March.

Mr Lawsky wants to see heads roll.

His Twitter feed, alongside musings on the US football team's performance in the World Cup, includes supportive links to editorials attacking those seeking to defend European banks.

One such article appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Its main argument? "Friendly members of the fourth estate aren't the only ones rushing to defend French bank BNP Paribas for allegedly violating US sanctions against Iran and Sudan. Virtually the entire French governing elite has decided that the most pressing economic issue facing the country isn't slow growth and high unemployment, but how to protect a too-big-to-fail bank from the consequences of its actions."

If you want to know what Mr Lawsky thinks about the knotty problem of how to actually punish a bank so it makes a difference, it is worth finding 12 minutes of your day to listen to this National Public Radio "Planet Money" broadcast.

It quotes one magazine profile of Mr Lawsky that described him as the "toughest cop on Wall Street". During the broadcast, you can hear Mr Lawsky, admittedly on a pretty scratchy smartphone recording from the back of the hall, saying that the constant uncovering of bad behaviour is "like Groundhog Day for the regulators".

He asks what are regulators "doing wrong" that they are still uncovering bad behaviour six years after the financial crisis.

And why banks are still behaving in the way they are.

Effective deterrent?

Is BNP's fine the "right way" to punish banks? Will the signal finally change cultures?

Certainly, it is of a size (equivalent to a year's profits) that could affect the bank's capital position.

That could raise the prospect of a cut in dividend, a capital raise via debt (issuing bonds) or equity (issuing shares) or a mixture of all three.

Raising money in the markets is always risky. The need for a prospectus opens up fresh opportunities for "bad stuff" to be revealed. The share price can become more volatile.

And, as the second biggest bank in Europe, BNP is also subject of the European Central Bank stress tests which are due to report in the autumn.

The bank's balance sheet is certainly going to be under a lot of scrutiny.

Mr Lawsky has alighted on the fact that the size of the fine is at least a partial solution to the issue of making reparations count.

Add that to a "heads must roll" approach and the US regulators certainly appear more aggressively on the front foot than those in Europe.

 
Kamal Ahmed Article written by Kamal Ahmed Kamal Ahmed Business editor

Royal Mail and Lloyds proves selling government assets is harder than you think

There’s a long list of things the coalition government would like to sell – but it hasn’t.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Kamal

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 159.

    BNP should tell Ben Lawsky and his regulators (sic) to take a hike, and move their currency portfolio to the Yen, Yuan and Euro - let the US $ take the beating it deserves ($17+ trillion US debt supports nothing!).

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 158.

    So US legal system is now above all other systems in the world...why do we just watch...why have we not fined their banks for the last debacle, for mis trading in europe...it appears we are weak and therefore unimportant. Do Microsofts , google etc actually pay the fines or get a reverse judgement in lower hicksville court, nebraska , and pay nothing as its american law and there fore wiser etc

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 157.

    Dreadful, absolutely dreadful.

    With 10,000 suicides as a direct result of the banking industry 'conducting itself' and its involvement in the illegal laundering of drug money; here's a tip:

    Make sure you have enough bullets and/or prisons.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 156.

    153. Montys Flying Circus

    . . . he's scrum half for the New York 1st15 :)

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 155.

    . . . which is why the chinese are launching their own superbank . . . american regulations are not about fair trading . . . they are about america controlling the market . . . it is not illegal to trade with Iran . . . only in america . . . but if you are clearing dollars you have committed an offence . . . this is political not commercial!

 

Comments 5 of 159

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.