MetLife Finally Proves That It's A Barely Significant Financial Institution

The insurance giant is making like Steve Martin and preaching "Let's get small!"
Author:
Publish date:

When is an international insurance company with a $50 billion market cap not systematically important?

According to a federal court ruling handed down today, the answer is "when that company is MetLife."

A federal judge overturned U.S. regulators’ determination that MetLife Inc. poses a threat to the financial system, granting the insurer a victory in its quest to avoid stricter rules and potentially undermining a central part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.
The ruling, which could be appealed by the government, gives the insurance company a reprieve from the decision it has been fighting for more than a year.

Avoiding Dodd-Frank will have the confetti falling and the Prosecco (champagne is for the SIFIs) corks a-popping over at the MetLife building, but how in the hell did one of the world's largest insurers convince a federal judge that they're not such a big deal?

Details of the court’s ruling weren't immediately available because U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued her opinion under seal.

So it's a secret?

Judge Collyer issued a two-page court order saying she sided with MetLife on two counts of its legal complaint and partially sided with MetLife on a third count accusing the council of making unsubstantiated assumptions. It said she sided with MetLife on some, but not all, of its arguments. The order said the council’s final determination on MetLife was rescinded and that “judgment is entered in favor of MetLife.”
The judge indicated that a public version of the opinion, with possible redactions, would be released in the future. She ordered both sides to say by April 6 whether any portions of her ruling should remain under seal.

We love a mystery!

What could be in the decision that designates MetLife as a glorified Mom n' Pop? We'll take your guesses in the comments.

MetLife Wins Bid to Shed ‘Systemically Important’ Label [WSJ]

Related

News

Banks Prove That They Are Not Too Big To Fail By Saying "We Can Fail" On A Piece Of Paper, Moving On

One way you could spend this slow week is reading the "living wills" submitted by a bunch of banks telling regulators how to wind them up if they go under. Don't, though: they're about the most boring and least informative things imaginable and I am angry that I read them.* Here for instance is how JPMorgan would wind itself up if left to its own devices**: (1) It would just file for bankruptcy and stiff its non-deposit creditors (at the holding company and then, if necessary, at the bank). (2) If after stiffing its non-deposit creditors it didn't have enough money to pay its depositors it would sell its highly attractive businesses in a competitive sale to willing buyers who would pay top dollar. This seems wrong, no? And not just in the sense of "in my opinion that would be sort of difficult, what with people freaking out about JPMorgan going bankrupt and its highly attractive businesses having landing it in, um, bankruptcy." It's wrong in the sense that it's the opposite of having a plan for dealing with banks being "too big to fail": it's premised on an assumption that the bank is not too big to fail. If JPMorgan runs into trouble that it can't get out of without taxpayer support, it'll just file for bankruptcy like anybody else. Depositors will be repaid (if they're under FDIC limits); non-depositor creditors will be screwed just like they would be on a failure of Second Community Bank of Kenosha.