Connect with us

Markets

Fed Urges U.S. Ban on Wall Street Buying Stakes in Companies

Published

on

Wall Street New York Stock Exchange

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other banks that invest in companies are officially on notice: The Federal Reserve wants that ability taken away.

Among several recommendations issued by U.S. banking regulators, one from the Fed urged Congress to prohibit merchant banking, in which firms buy stakes in companies rather than lend them money. In a report released Thursday, the agency also pushed for limits on Wall Street’s ownership of physical commodities after lawmakers accused Goldman Sachs and other banks of seizing unfair advantages in metal and energy markets in recent years.

The report — based on a multi-agency study of banks’ investment activities required by the Dodd-Frank Act — highlighted ways to fix potential risks that regulators didn’t think were handled by the law’s Volcker Rule ban on certain trading and investments. The need for Congress to pass legislation presents the greatest hurdle to the Fed’s recommendations on merchant-banking and the ability of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to operate mines, warehouse aluminum and ship oil.

“Congress has an obligation to give their recommendations serious attention,” U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, the most senior Democrat on the Banking Committee, said in a statement.

A 2014 Senate investigation into banks’ commodities businesses revealed Goldman Sachs had almost $15 billion in merchant banking investments. The firm’s most recent filings show it booked $1.2 billion in revenue through the first six months of this year in its division that houses merchant banking, with equity investments contributing $626 million of that.

Copper Investments

Another agency that participated in issuing the report, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said it plans to restrict lenders’ holdings of the hard-to-value securities. The OCC also proposed a rule Thursday that would curtail banks’ investments in certain industrial metals including copper and aluminum.

The Fed called for the repeal of exemptions for industrial loan companies, which are lenders generally owned by non-financial firms, that allow them to operate outside of rules that affect banks. The Fed’s section of the report said its aim was to level the playing field among financial firms and “help ensure the separation of banking and commerce.”

Spokesmen for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. — another bank that could be affected by the recommendations — declined to comment on the regulators’ report.

A coalition of financial industry associations called the recommendations “unfortunate and ill-considered” in a statement. The groups — including the Clearing House Association, American Bankers Association and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association — said merchant banking has financed startups and fueled job growth. The groups also argued that it hasn’t been shown to pose a risk to the financial system.

Congressional Gridlock

The Fed and the U.S. Treasury Department adopted a merchant-banking rule in 2001 after the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act gave banks the right to make such investments. But making statutory changes to merchant banking and other industry laws would require intervention from lawmakers — a tall order in a politically-divided Congress that has passed only a few significant bills affecting the financial system in recent years. That leaves any immediate impact of the report in doubt.

The Fed, OCC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. were required by Dodd-Frank to dig into further risks from bank investments, and they were supposed to issue the report almost five years ago.

The document was called for by a provision tucked more than 200 pages into Dodd-Frank under section 620. Lenders’ government watchdogs had to review the industry’s investment activities to determine whether they “could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness” of the financial system. But the mandate was easy to lose track of next to the passage that preceded it: section 619, which is better known as the Volcker Rule.

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan were the targets of criticism that led to the 2014 Senate review of their commodities businesses. It found lenders used their ownership of metals and other physical commodities to dominate markets and gain unfair trading advantages. The physical commodities businesses at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were protected by grandfathering that allowed them wider abilities than most banks — an advantage the Fed is seeking to end.

Morgan Stanley sold off its oil business last year and backed away from industrial metals trading, while JPMorgan shed a big part of its physical commodities business in 2014. While Goldman Sachs dumped a coal-mining operation in 2015, Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein has maintained that commodities trading is a “core” part of his firm’s business.

Is the CEO/Founder of Investors King Limited. A proven foreign exchange research analyst and a published author on Yahoo Finance, Businessinsider, Nasdaq, Entrepreneur.com, Investorplace, and many more. He has over two decades of experience in global financial markets.

Continue Reading
Comments

Crude Oil

Oil Prices Sink 1% as Israel-Hamas Talks in Cairo Ease Middle East Tensions

Published

on

Crude oil - Investors King

Oil prices declined on Monday, shedding 1% of their value as Israel-Hamas peace negotiations in Cairo alleviated fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East.

The easing tensions coupled with U.S. inflation data contributed to the subdued market sentiment and erased gains made earlier.

Brent crude oil, against which Nigerian oil is priced, dropped by as much as 1.09% to 8.52 a barrel while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil fell by 0.99% to $83.02 a barrel.

The initiation of talks to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas played a pivotal role in moderating geopolitical concerns, according to analysts.

A delegation from Hamas was set to engage in peace discussions in Cairo on Monday, as confirmed by a Hamas official to Reuters.

Also, statements from the White House indicated that Israel had agreed to address U.S. concerns regarding the potential humanitarian impacts of the proposed invasion.

Market observers also underscored the significance of the upcoming U.S. Federal Reserve’s policy review on May 1.

Anticipation of a more hawkish stance from the Federal Open Market Committee added to investor nervousness, particularly in light of Friday’s data revealing a 2.7% rise in U.S. inflation over the previous 12 months, surpassing the Fed’s 2% target.

This heightened inflationary pressure reduced the likelihood of imminent interest rate cuts, which are typically seen as stimulative for economic growth and oil demand.

Independent market analysts highlighted the role of the strengthening U.S. dollar in exacerbating the downward pressure on oil prices, as higher interest rates tend to attract capital flows and bolster the dollar’s value, making oil more expensive for holders of other currencies.

Moreover, concerns about weakening demand surfaced with China’s industrial profit growth slowing down in March, as reported by official data. This trend signaled potential challenges for oil consumption in the world’s second-largest economy.

However, amidst the current market dynamics, optimism persists regarding potential upside in oil prices. Analysts noted that improvements in U.S. inventory data and China’s Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) could reverse the downward trend.

Also, previous gains in oil prices, fueled by concerns about supply disruptions in the Middle East, indicate the market’s sensitivity to geopolitical developments in the region.

Despite these fluctuations, the market appeared to brush aside potential disruptions to supply resulting from Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian oil refineries over the weekend. The attack temporarily halted operations at the Slavyansk refinery in Russia’s Krasnodar region, according to a plant executive.

As oil markets navigate through geopolitical tensions and economic indicators, the outcome of ongoing negotiations and future data releases will likely shape the trajectory of oil prices in the coming days.

Continue Reading

Commodities

Cocoa Fever Sweeps Market: Prices Set to Break $15,000 per Ton Barrier

Published

on

Cocoa

The cocoa market is experiencing an unprecedented surge with prices poised to shatter the $15,000 per ton barrier.

The cocoa industry, already reeling from supply shortages and production declines in key regions, is now facing a frenzy of speculative trading and bullish forecasts.

At the recent World Cocoa Conference in Brussels, nine traders and analysts surveyed by Bloomberg expressed unanimous confidence in the continuation of the cocoa rally.

According to their predictions, New York futures could trade above $15,000 a ton before the year’s end, marking yet another milestone in the relentless ascent of cocoa prices.

The surge in cocoa prices has been fueled by a perfect storm of factors, including production declines in Ivory Coast and Ghana, the world’s largest cocoa producers.

Shortages of cocoa beans have left buyers scrambling for supplies and willing to pay exorbitant premiums, exacerbating the market tightness.

To cope with the supply crunch, Ivory Coast and Ghana have resorted to rolling over contracts totaling around 400,000 tons of cocoa, further exacerbating the scarcity.

Traders are increasingly turning to cocoa stocks held in exchanges in London and New York, despite concerns about their quality, as the shortage of high-quality beans intensifies.

Northon Coimbrao, director of sourcing at chocolatier Natra, noted that quality considerations have taken a backseat for most processors amid the supply crunch, leading them to accept cocoa from exchanges despite its perceived inferiority.

This shift in dynamics is expected to further deplete stocks and provide additional support to cocoa prices.

The cocoa rally has already seen prices surge by about 160% this year, nearing the $12,000 per ton mark in New York.

This meteoric rise has put significant pressure on traders and chocolate makers, who are grappling with rising margin calls and higher bean prices in the physical market.

Despite the challenges posed by soaring cocoa prices, stakeholders across the value chain have demonstrated a willingness to absorb the cost increases.

Jutta Urpilainen, European Commissioner for International Partnerships, noted that the market has been able to pass on price increases from chocolate makers to consumers, highlighting the resilience of the cocoa industry.

However, concerns linger about the eventual impact of the price surge on consumers, with some chocolate makers still covered for supplies.

According to Steve Wateridge, head of research at Tropical Research Services, the full effects of the price increase may take six months to a year to materialize, posing a potential future challenge for consumers.

As the cocoa market continues to navigate uncharted territory all eyes remain on the unfolding developments, with traders, analysts, and industry stakeholders bracing for further volatility and potential record-breaking price levels in the days ahead.

Continue Reading

Crude Oil

IOCs Stick to Dollar Dominance in Crude Oil Transactions with Modular Refineries

Published

on

Crude Oil - Investors King

International Oil Companies (IOCs) are standing firm on their stance regarding the currency denomination for crude oil transactions with modular refineries.

Despite earlier indications suggesting a potential shift towards naira payments, IOCs have asserted their preference for dollar dominance in these transactions.

The decision, communicated during a meeting involving indigenous modular refineries and crude oil producers, shows the complex dynamics shaping Nigeria’s energy landscape.

While the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) had previously hinted at the possibility of allowing indigenous refineries to purchase crude oil in either naira or dollars, IOCs have maintained a firm stance favoring the latter.

Under this framework, modular refineries would be required to pay 80% of the crude oil purchase amount in US dollars, with the remaining 20% to be settled in naira.

This arrangement, although subject to ongoing discussions, signals a significant departure from initial expectations of a more balanced currency allocation.

Representatives from the Crude Oil Refinery Owners Association of Nigeria (CORAN) said the decision was not unilaterally imposed but rather reached through deliberations with relevant stakeholders, including the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).

While there were initial hopes of broader flexibility in currency options, the dominant position of IOCs has steered discussions towards a more dollar-centric model.

Despite reservations expressed by some participants, including modular refinery operators, the consensus appears to lean towards accommodating the preferences of major crude oil suppliers.

The development underscores the intricate negotiations and power dynamics shaping Nigeria’s energy sector, with implications for both domestic and international stakeholders.

As discussions continue, attention remains focused on how this decision will impact the operations and financial viability of modular refineries in Nigeria’s evolving oil landscape.

Continue Reading
Advertisement




Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending