MetLife Isn't a Bank Anymore

But it could still maybe destroy the global economy.
Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

But it could still maybe destroy the global economy.

MetLife Chief Executive Steven Kandarian said at a Bank of America Merrill Lynch investor conference Thursday after MetLife learned it had shed the bank-holding-company status that "it would be logical to assume" that if AIG and Prudential are being considered as systemically important, MetLife also would be. He said he didn't believe MetLife posed a risk to the financial system.

That "doesn't mean our point of view will prevail," Mr. Kandarian said.

MetLife Sheds Bank Status [WSJ]

Related

Prominent Former Bank Still Wheeling and Dealing

Lehman Brothers' former Manhattan headquarters is now unmistakably the New York base of an even more discredited (if still solvent) bank. But the bankrupt if lucrative shell of a company still owns a big midtown building—one that it took over two years after it filed for bankruptcy. Now, it's unloading it for a song.

Germany Looks At Its Banks

For all their saber-rattling and bold talk about a final solution to the problem of global financial risk, the Germans haven't done a hell of lot to rein in their banks. There is, for instance, no Großdeutschesvolckerregierung. At least, not yet.

JPMorgan's Voldemort Probably Isn't That Magical

John Carney has hilariously convinced a bunch of people that JPMorgan whale-wizard Bruno Iksil could actually be running a synthetic bank on top of JPMorgan's actual bank. The theory, propounded to him by a mysterious trader and sort of supported by an old PIMCO client note, is that Iksil was tasked with hedging JPMorgan's inflation risk and did so by putting on a trade that was (1) long TIPS (for the inflation) + (2) long [write protection on] CDX (for the yield). Now I will tell you a thing, which is that I hedge my inflation risk by being (1) long TIPS (for the inflation) + (2) long MegaMillions tickets (for the yield),* but nobody calls me Voldemort. Here is Doug Braunstein's theory about Iksil: On a conference call with analysts, Braunstein said the positions are meant to hedge investments the bank makes in “very high grade” securities with excess deposits. (J.P. Morgan has some $1.1 trillion in worldwide deposits.) Braunstein said the CIO positions are meant to offset the risk of a “stress-loss” in that credit portfolio. He added the CIO position is made in line with the bank’s overall risk strategy. What can that mean? Presumably the sensible view to take from this is that this is actually part of a "stress-loss" hedge; the CIO is short (bought protection on) a lot of shorter-dated corporate credit and funds it by being long (selling protection on) a lot of longer-dated (5-year) corporate credit, so as to be relatively DV01-neutral but long jump risk. This has the advantage of (1) actually hedging a stress loss in high-grade short-term corporate securities, (2) fitting in with the relative lack of noise in the CIO portfolio,** (3) being what people have told Bloomberg he was doing, and (4) being what JPMorgan has actually said it's actually done in the CIO during the crisis. So it's probably true no? But it's fun to pretend! If you pretend Carney is right you can have one of two views.*** One is Izabella Kaminska's, which is "sure, I guess this is a hedge, but boy is it a mysterious one." You can buy this if you have - as she does - a pretty postmodernist view of what a hedge is. I do too, mostly.