Bank Lawyer's Blog

Rent Seeking "Reform"

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. responds to a New York Times editorial that claimed that President Obama has been frustrated throughout his two terms by the "political dysfunction" caused by a recalcitrant Republican-led Congress. In his response, Jenkins touches upon a subject near and dear to community bankers and, not coincidentally, to the author of this rag sheet.

If Mr. Obama was “deeply frustrated,” the reason was the American people’s lack of support for his agenda. And what the Times calls his regulatory strategy would better be described as unbridled rent seeking.

That’s the term economists use for exercising government power to create private gains for political purposes. Consider:

Mr. Obama’s bank policy dramatically consolidated the banking industry, which the government routinely sues for billions of dollars, with the proceeds partly distributed to Democratic activist groups.

His consumer-finance agency manufactured fake evidence of racism against wholesale auto lenders in order to facilitate a billion-dollar shakedown.

His airline policy, urged by labor unions, led to a major-carrier oligopoly, with rising fares and profits.

His FDA is seeking to extinguish small e-cigarette makers for the benefit of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma (whose smoking-cessation franchise is threatened by cheap and relatively safe electronic cigarettes).

His National Labor Relations Board, by undermining the power of independent franchisees, is working to cartelize the fast-food industry for the benefit of organized labor.

We could go on. Mr. Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisers complains about the increasing cartelization of the U.S. economy—as if this were not a natural output of regulation. In a much-noted Harvard Business Review piece this spring, James Bessen, an economist, lawyer and software entrepreneur, cites increased “political rent seeking” to explain the puzzle of rising corporate profits in the absence of job creation and economic growth.

The truth is, government playing neutral arbiter over the private economy doesn’t produce rents. A stable and predictable regulatory system produces only mingy or non-existent rents.

Jenkins' allegation that "rent seeking" regulatory "reform" that has resulted in thousands of pages of new regulations that burden banks big and small, as well as pushing the envelope on "disparate impact" and other theories designed to squeeze blood and money out of banks through regulatory enforcement actions, is leading to the "caterlization" of the U.S. economy in general and the U.S. banking system in particular, strikes a chord in many ears It's not the only reason for the consolidation of the banking business, but it's one of them, and a not insignificant one.

As to the ideologues who deny any regulatory burden exists, or if does exist, isn't having a negative effect on community banks (based, I assume, upon Vladimr Lenin's assertion that "A lie told often enough becomes the truth"), the House Financial Services Committee recently published a raft of contrary opinions from the folks on the firing line. Read 'em and weep.

As to where the community banking business, and the country in general, are headed, I have to agree with the conclusion of the CEO of a Mid-Western community bank, communicated to me in an email this weekend: "This doesn't end well."

No, it doesn't. Unless, of course, you're a rent seeker.

No Light At The End Of The Tunnel

Investment banker (and former OTS official) C.K. Lee has been keeping his finger on the pulse of the financial institution capital markets for years, and when it comes to the future of de novo banks, the outlook, to him, looks grim. It's not just due to the hostile attitude of the FDIC, FRB and OCC (although Lee notes that hostility as a factor), it's because of the difficulty of raising capital.

“The barriers to entry are high, not just on the regulatory side but with raising capital.”

It's not the big banks that are having trouble, it's the little guys. The results of those troubles are stark.

The firm estimates it’s raised about $700 million in investment capital for banks in the last six or seven years. Two investment groups they’ve put together recently are in North Texas.

Lee is a former official at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and was regional director of the Office of Thrift Supervision’s Western region. He said in the past three years, about one-third of banks located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area with less than $5 billion in assets have been consolidated. But the biggest shift has been seen at the smallest end of the market, where the smallest businesses go if they can’t get a line of credit at the giant firms.

There were 3,255 banks with less than $100 million in assets in 2003, making up more than 43 percent of all community banks. By 2014, however, there were 1,919 of these firms, making up less than one third of community banks, according a report from the Brookings Institution published in December.

Before 2011, about 3 percent of all banks would merge or be acquired each year. But Lee said recently they are above a 4 percent clip.

So, not only are their many, many fewer little banks today than 13 years ago, but they are merging at a faster rate than even five years ago. As the big get bigger and the small disappear altogether, the consequences for the economy are troublesome.

“A big part of the decline in small business creation in this country over the last six or seven years is because smaller, community banks are going out of business, not necessarily through failure but consolidation,” Lee said. “We are shocked at the level of consolidation that we’ve seen.”

Small businesses have been the nation's biggest job creators and small community banks have been their biggest source of financing. Therefore, the rapid decline in the number of small community banks has hampered job creation. Perhaps that has contributed to the fact that the recovery of the economy from the 2008 recession has been the slowest recovery from a recession since 1949.

Like many of us who serve the community banking business, Lee ends with a common theme: the federal financial regulatory regime has not been helpful.

But Lee insists regulators need to allow banks to keep up with other industries that are seeing a boom in start-ups.

“I just think the regulatory machine is going to be 20 years behind,” Lee said. “I just think we are making a mistake as a country if we’re going to let a lot of really good banks walk off into the sunset.”

So do I, but I won't hold my breath that such a mistake will ever be admitted, much less corrected. On the other hand, geniuses like Lizzie Warren think the U.S. Post Office will pick up the slack.

Come November, I don't expect that the attitude of those with their hands on the levers of power will improve, whichever of the two eminently qualified candidates for the possessor of the nuclear codes grabs the grass crown.

The Blame Game Is Still Being Played

In the spring of 2008, months before Lehman Brothers became the largest bankruptcy in US history and the world as we knew it went to hell in a hand basket, I wrote a post about a Wall Street Journal editorial by the former CEO of Nomura Capital, Ethan Penner, in which he decried the bailout culture and the lack of personal responsibility it both reflected and fostered in America.

And so we have the insidious modern trend to shirk responsibility and blame others for our missteps. This trend, this "victim mentality," is a path toward personal disaster.

Perhaps if the Fed had raised short-term rates more aggressively, the excesses of the bubble could have been avoided. Maybe regulators could have noticed that the criteria for achieving an AAA rating had weakened markedly and inserted themselves early on. Yes, we can hope that the government takes the appropriate steps to ensure that the regulatory system improves as a result of this crisis. However, we citizens also need to accept our share of the responsibility.

Homeowners must learn that there are risks to using a home as an ATM. Investors who borrowed to flip condos must learn the downside of such risk. Individuals who steered money from insured bank deposits into uninsured money market accounts to pick up 1% more yield – like the institutional investors who purchased complex securities with little due diligence – need to know that in an efficient market, extra yield means extra risk. Those who played the derivatives market, focusing more on computer-driven pricing models and less on managing counterparty risk, must pay for that oversight. And, much as it is impolitic to say, people who took money from lenders and signed without considering how they'd repay those loans must also be held accountable.

In one of this year's primary debates, Ron Paul said it is not the president's job to run the economy. I'd add that it is not the government's job either. It is each and every citizen's job to manage our own affairs, make our own decisions, bear the fruits or painful consequences and learn our lessons.

The free market is the essence of our society's strength and is rooted in the Lincolnian precepts of accountability and responsibility. When decisions are made and actions taken (or not taken), there are consequences. These consequences are models for us to learn from and serve to stimulate social growth and advancement.

Less than six months later, the collapse occurred, the big bailouts ensued, and as we all know, the lessons taught by the adverse consequences of poor decision making were not learned. At least the world economy didn't tip over into total depression, but eight years later, we still haven't fully recovered from the meltdown.

Last December, Michael Burry, a main character in the book and movie, "The Big Short," gave an interview to Jessica Pressler which was published in New York Magazine, in which he, too, bemoned the unlearned lessons of the events leading up to that collapse. When asked if the crash resulted in any "positive changes," he responded negatively.

Unfortunately, not many that I can see. The biggest hope I had was that we would enter a new era of personal responsibility. Instead, we doubled down on blaming others, and this is long-term tragic. Too, the crisis, incredibly, made the biggest banks bigger. And it made the Federal Reserve, an unelected body, even more powerful and therefore more relevant. The major reform legislation, Dodd-Frank, was named after two guys bought and sold by special interests, and one of them should be shouldering a good amount of blame for the crisis. Banks were forced, by the government, to save some of the worst lenders in the housing bubble, then the government turned around and pilloried the banks for the crimes of the companies they were forced to acquire. The zero interest-rate policy broke the social contract for generations of hardworking Americans who saved for retirement, only to find their savings are not nearly enough. And the interest the Federal Reserve pays on the excess reserves of lending institutions broke the money multiplier and handcuffed lending to small and midsized enterprises, where the majority of job creation and upward mobility in wages occurs. Government policies and regulations in the postcrisis era have aided the hollowing-out of middle America far more than anything the private sector has done. These changes even expanded the wealth gap by making asset owners richer at the expense of renters. Maybe there are some positive changes in there, but it seems I fail to see beyond the absurdity.

[...]

The postcrisis perception, at least in the media, appears to be one of Americans being held down by Wall Street, by big companies in the private sector, and by the wealthy. Capitalism is on trial. I see it a little differently. If a lender offers me free money, I do not have to take it. And if I take it, I better understand all the terms, because there is no such thing as free money. That is just basic personal responsibility and common sense. The enablers for this crisis were varied, and it starts not with the bank but with decisions by individuals to borrow to finance a better life, and that is one very loaded decision. This crisis was such a bona fide 100-year flood that the entire world is still trying to dig out of the mud seven years later. Yet so few took responsibility for having any part in it, and the reason is simple: All these people found others to blame, and to that extent, an unhelpful narrative was created. Whether it’s the one percent or hedge funds or Wall Street, I do not think society is well served by failing to encourage every last American to look within. This crisis truly took a village, and most of the villagers themselves are not without some personal responsibility for the circumstances in which they found themselves. We should be teaching our kids to be better citizens through personal responsibility, not by the example of blame.

Burry's another smart guy who condemns the consequences of a culture in which "personal responsibility" is a foreign concept. If the vitriol of this election season has emphasized anything to me, it's certain that most of us are no closer to looking in a mirror when it comes to assigning blame for the bad things that happen to us today than we were in late 2008. In fact, after eight years of non-governance, with Nanny State organs like the CFPB "all fired up and ready to go" with the task of finding others to blame for every single instance of inequality of condition, and with an apparent choice between (as Peggy Noonan put it) a criminal and a crazy man for the title of "Leader of the Free World," we appear to be farther down the road to perdition than we were in 2008, and with a heavy jackboot pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to the floor.

Not that I expect anyone to really give a rat's tukus about the foregoing, this being an election year in which every person seems to be polarized by the zeigeist. However, maybe we ought to be concerned by the prospect of "deja vu all over again." Ben Lane at Housing Wire pointed out this past week that during the first quarter of this year, Mr. Burry's hedge fund liquidated its portfolio of a number of big bank stocks. Lane states that "[t]ime will tell if Burry’s bet is proven right again." Although that's true, based on his track record, this should not allow anyone to sleep well at night. Unless, of course, you, too, are "going short."

[Edited to clean up typos and the brutal overuse of the verb "decry."]

Residential Mortgage Lending: The Bloom Is Off The Rose For More Than Just The Big Banks

My friend, Colorado community and mortgage banker Pat Dalrymple's, latest "Banker's Hours" column in the PostIndependent Citizen Telegram again struck a chord with me. With permission, here it is, in case it also hits home with you:

We hear that the TBTF (Too Big to Fail) banks are getting out of the mortgage business. Can this really be true? Weren’t they reputed to be the culprits in the recent Great Recession that was reportedly triggered by all of the toxic mortgages they originated?

Well, they haven’t left the building entirely, but they’re not in residence like they once were. Here are some fairly dramatic stats:

Wells-Fargo, the nation’s No. 1 mortgage originator, funded $125 billion in mortgage loans during the fourth quarter of 2012. During the same period in 2015, that number was down to $47 billion.

Chase, the second ranking lender, did $51 billion in the last three months of 2012. In 2015, that number had shrunk to just under $23 billion. These are dramatic swings in banking, and show major ramp down of what was once a core business.

And it’s not just the big guys that are backing away from the iconic American Dream of financing home ownership. In 2007 banks made 74 percent of home loans in the country. By 2014, their share had dropped to 52 percent. At the same time, the share of nonbanks, which includes online lenders like Quicken Loans, had increased from 23 percent to 43 percent.

What’s happened? Just business; mortgage lending isn’t as profitable for banks as it once was. Interest margins on home loans held in portfolio are thinner than other lending lines. Since the Great Meltdown, the private bond market has virtually dried up for mortgage-backed securities. The cost of originating mortgages has skyrocketed, and regulatory risk has become, in the eyes of some former mortgage lenders, intolerable.

The increased cost of doing business is graphically demonstrated by the fourth quarter of 2015: Net gain on mortgages originated was down 60 percent, from $1,238 per loan to just $493. This is because lenders spent billions on re-tooling for the new RESPA-Truth in Lending disclosure protocol mandated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that came online in October of last year.

As for regulatory risk, we’ve all heard of the multi-billion-dollar fines levied against the big banks for their role in originating and packaging the famous rotten mortgages that were at the root of the financial crisis. But the risk for banks is ongoing.

For example, PHH — a nonbank mortgage originator, seventh largest in the country last year at $37.57 billion — was just hit with a $109 million fine, which is certainly an attention getter. But the way it happened has lenders shaking in their Guccis. It was alleged that PHH had illegally taken kickbacks from mortgage insurers through customer referrals. The case went to an administrative law judge, who suggested a fine of $6 million.

To appreciate this story, we need to understand what an administrative law judge is. This person is trained in the law, but isn’t a real judge, as in a courtroom. Rather, he or she is employed by the agency bringing the charge. People who have been subjected to this process have likened it to walking into the Godfather’s study, who says, “Don’t worry about a thing, Joey, my consigliere here will give you a fair and impartial hearing.”

In the PHH case, the capo of the CFPB interpreted the law differently than it had been heretofore applied, so he must have said, “Geno, you were too soft on them.” He decided that the violations went back much further than the tame judge deemed, way back even before the CFPB was created, and increased the fine up to the $109 million.

Think the Mob has a long memory?

All of these factors are making big lenders think twice about being in the business. It may be the slack will be picked up by small banks, credit unions and online lenders. The jury’s out on that question.

FDIC: Bring Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled De Novos, Yearing To Be Free

Last week, FDIC Chairman Martin Greunberg announced that the FDIC was rescinding a policy that it instituted during the depths of the last recession, of requiring heightened scrutiny of de novo banks during their first eight years of existence, and was returning to the policy of the "good old days," when new banks suffered life under an regulatory electron microscope for only three years. Gruenberg claims that "the FDIC welcomes applications for deposit insurance, and we clearly have a role to play in facilitating the establishment of new institutions." He also claimed that the reason that de novo applications have slowed to "a trickle" since the start of the Great Recession is because of economic factors, not a real or imagined FDIC moratorium on insurance of accounts for de novo banks.

I should note that establishing even a small community bank is a challenging endeavor. Developing a sound business plan, raising the needed financial resources and recruiting competent leadership and staff takes work and we want to ensure that every new institution that is established is in a position to succeed.

But we are very committed to working with and providing support to any group with an interest in starting a community bank. To that end, we are developing a handbook to guide applicants through the review process.

There is ample room for new community banks with sound funding and well conceived business plans to serve their local markets. It is essential that they have a clear path to approval.

This all sounds well and good on the surface. However, I'm with attorney Charles Horn who, writing in the National Law Journal, indicates that he is, like me, from Missouri on this matter.

That said, the dearth in new deposit insurance approvals in recent years has, to some extent, become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that a perceived FDIC reluctance to approve new deposit insurance applications has helped suppress industry interest in establishing new banks. Chairman Gruenberg is correct, in part, in attributing the decline in deposit insurance applications to post-financial crisis economic conditions. At the same time, experience has shown us that persons wanting to organize a new insured depository institution have been discouraged by the FDIC’s failure to approve more than a small handful of new deposit insurance applications in the past few years (none so far in 2016, two in 2015, none in 2014, three in 2011, and two in 2010, according to the FDIC’s website).

While we state the obvious in saying that the best way for the FDIC to encourage the formation of new banks is to approve more deposit insurance applications, the point here is that it is actions—not words—that will speak the loudest on this subject.

There is no question that these are still difficult times to make money in the community banking business, no matter how much lipstick Gruenberg paints on the lips of the community banking business in the course of his address (and he lathers it on in rosy red hues in the linked article). A good portion of that difficulty is due to the small interest rate spreads and low interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve's policies over the past nine years, which, as of today, seem rooted in place. Nevertheless, as the Federal Reserve's own economists have noted, the dearth of de novos is also due to the regulatory burdens placed on the small banks by the FDIC, FRB, and OCC. Greunberg does state that a "gentler approach" and "tiered regulation" are on the way. If true, this relief will be welcome.

We'll have to wait and see whether this promise of more de novos is true or false. As we noted just a few months ago, even those applicants who have weathered the storm and made it over the finish line have painted a grim picture of the time and expense required, as well as of much higher capital requirements (which means reduced return on equity). If organizers expect to pay consultants and attorneys hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist them in raising capital, creating extensive business plans, and preparing detailed applications for insurance of accounts, I think that they want to feel more confident that they will have a decent shot at approval.

As Horn observes, in this area, actions will speak louder than words.

Barney Bites Bernie (And Neel)

Now that hell has frozen over, I find that all kinds of amazing things are occurring, one of which has created the danger of ripping a huge hole in the space-time continuum: I find myself in agreement with Barney Frank.

While watching the PBS News Hour this past Thursday night, who should pop up but the former House Banking Committee Chair and favorite Bank Lawyers Blog Bullseye, Barney, who was interviewed by Jeffrey Brown about Frank's reaction to statements by Neel Kashkari, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and former Bush Bailout TARP Toolmaker, and the ever-cranky Bernie Sanders, Gen Y's favorite "Democratic Socialist," about "To Big To Fail Banks." Sanders also alleged that the way to break up big banks is to reimpose the Glass-Steagall on commercial banks. Frank, now that he's out of the political arena and no longer feels compelled to be what every politician feels he or she must be, i.e., a caster of shade upon of the truth, was remarkably critical of two gents who are spouting the Democrat Party line about the evils of Wall Street's "TBTF" banks.

Barney may have gained some objectivity, but he's lost none of the pungent-tongued arrows from his verbal quiver.

In the first place, both Senator Sanders and Mr. Kashkari continue to evade the biggest question. That is, how big is too big? The crisis which touched off when Lehman Brothers couldn’t make its payment, Lehman Brothers was about $650 billion in assets. We have banks four and five times that size

And the question is, does everybody have to be smaller than Lehman Brothers is today? But that would have consequences. Getting there would be a problem. By the way, it should be very clear, Glass-Steagall doesn’t do it. There is a disconnect between Senator Sanders insisting that the banks be broken down to the point where they won’t by their own size threaten, if they have too much debt, to undermine it.

And Glass-Steagall — Glass-Steagall would reduce — it wouldn’t do anything to Goldman Sachs and to Morgan Stanley, which are almost Glass-Steagall-ized themselves. But looked at Citicorp, or J.P. Morgan Chase, or Bank of America, Wells Fargo, even if they were subject to Glass-Steagall, they would still be well beyond the size that Lehman Brothers was.

There is just a disconnect between saying we’re going to do Glass-Steagall and getting the banks down to a size where, if there was a complete failure, you would get damaged by it.

The entire response above by Frank is remarkable for the fact that he's right. It's obvious that he's not been spending his time since retirement sampling the wares of Mar Jane-related "legal" businesses in Colorado.

Frank also jumped all over Kashkari's comparison of the 2008 meltdown to the S&L crisis of the 1980s, and Kashkari's statement that the reason the S&L crisis didn't bring the economy down was because none of the S&Ls was "too big to fail." Again, Frank asks why Kashkari won't tell us how big is too big? He also correctly notes that the bailout of the S&Ls cost a lot more than the bail out of big banks in 2008, although he does not also observe that this was because the 2008 TARP allowed the big banks to survive, while the S&L "bailout" allowed them to fail (or most of them, at any rate (outside the Southwest Plan thrifts), and established the Resolution Trust Corporation, staffed by the FDIC, to liquidate their assets. If the politicians, including Frank, had stayed out of it in the 1980s and let the initial bailout template concocted by the former Federal Savings and Loan Corporation play out, there's a chance that the money from that bailout might also have been largely repaid.

Frank says the primary risk is not size but "indebtedness," and on this point he's got a point. However, I disagree with his assertion that his bloated namesake, Dodd-Frank, has dealt successfully with the risk of bank's engaging in excessive borrowing and hinky derivatives that made "The Big Fail" such a hit (his misapprehension of the effect of the Volcker Rule has been lambasted previously), and his assertion that now, no bank is too big to fail. 

If a large institution can’t pay its debts, it fails. It is not too big to fail. It is put out of business, by law. No federal official can advance any money to pay its debts under the law until it is dissolved.

TARP also required legislation to create, and the wide-open authority it provided the federal government to bail out banks was induced by panic among folks at the highest levels of the federal government (including Frank) of immanent widespread economic collapse. We'll see how effective Franken-Dodd is when the next crisis hits, as it inevitably will. There's no prohibition on a future panicked Congress changing the rules on the spur of the moment to do what Frank claims can never again be done.

To prove that I haven't completely turned to the dark side, I think his statements about overturning Citizens United are bunk. Nevertheless, all-in-all, startlingly, he makes a lot of sense.

Activist Investors Betting On Bank Mergers

It appears that "activist" investors are turning to banks because they, like many of the rest of us close to the banking sector, think that there will be continued consolidation of the banking industry in the U.S., and what better way to make yourself some hard-earned profits than buying shares in a business and then pushing its board to sell the family farm so you can cash out. Some of you may remember that this model business plan was why the FDIC apparently soured on relying on "private equity" investors to help it clean up the mess after the last banking meltdown.

According to reporters in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "[a]ctivist investors are putting the U.S. banking sector in their crosshairs, betting that headwinds whipping through the industry will accelerate consolidation among lenders." The authors cite the rapid uptick in such "activist campaigns" in the financial sector last year, and observe that the "activists" are turning their attention from insurance companies and other non-bank financial businesses to commercial banks.

Hedge funds such as Ancora Advisors, Clover Partners and Seidman & Associates are buying up stakes in lenders across the U.S., from community banks to large regional lenders.

Driving these investments is the view that ultra-low interest rates, lagging returns on equity and tough regulations will push more banks to merge, with buyers willing to pay a hefty multiple to a bank’s tangible book value. Activist investors interviewed by Reuters say another factor is exposure to energy-related loans, which is driving down the valuations of certain banks and making them all the more vulnerable to a takeover.

“Bigger banks are back in the market doing deals,” said Ralph MacDonald, a partner at law firm Jones Day, who specializes in mergers and acquisitions.

U.S. bank mergers and acquisitions volume rose 58 percent last year to $34.5 billion, according to Thomson Reuters data.

The authors think that Zions and Comerica are likely targets. Both "Systemically Important Financial Institutions" had under performing returns on equity last year. That alone makes them prime targets for "activists."

The firm believes that any bank earning a 12 percent or less return on tangible common equity needs to consider whether it can prosper as an independent institution, PL Capital co-founder Richard Lashley said in an interview.

A bank’s exposure to falling energy prices makes it even more vulnerable, he noted. But another key factor is a bank’s ability to maneuver through a climate where low rates are compressing net interest margins, and stricter regulations are increasing costs.

“Management teams and boards are just exhausted,” said Lashley, who is based in New Jersey. “It’s not fun to run a bank anymore.”

However, the article also contains a quote from a community bank chief that indicates that the trend to consolidate is not just for SIFIs.

“My phones are ringing off the hook with calls coming in from banks wanting to sell,” said Pat Hickman, the CEO of Happy State Bank, a lender in the Texas panhandle. “And one of the primary reasons is regulation.”

Yes, it's not fun to run ANY bank anymore, not just the large ones. Whether your a big bank or a small one, publicly traded or privately held, pressured by "activist" investors or simply by the facts of life: as we said a few weeks ago, 2016 will very likely be the year of the bank merger.

2016: Year Of The Merger

Respected bank analyst Dick Bove told CNBC last week that the United states is in for a tsunami of bank meregers in the coming year.

"In the United States, I think you will see a huge wave of mergers in banking in 2016," Bove, who is the vice-president of equity research at Rafferty Capital, told CNBC.

"The regional banks are going to be buying each other and I would expect to see 2016 being one of the biggest years for bank mergers that we have seen in the last decade," he later added.

If the activity that I have seen thus far in my little corner of the universe is any indication, you can take Bove's prediction to the bank. Community and regional bank M&A lawyers are going to be plenty busy in 2016.

In addition to customary reasons for consolidation that we've talked about over the past few years, including the crushing regulatory environment post-Franken-Dodd, there's another that I haven't heard discussed, but that ought to be thrown in the hopper of any bank owner who has been fantasizing about cashing out and sipping Margaritas in Mazatlan.

Bove was also bloviating last week (this time to CNN) about how problems in the oil patch spell trouble for banks that bank the "Awl Bidness," and that those kinds of problems have, in the not-so-distant past, spread beyond the oil states and caused a wider economic recession. There are differences this time around from the 1980s on Texas, but Bove is still "concerned" that even big banks outside of Houston and Dallas could feel the pinch. Chase's Jamie Dimon disagrees.

Even Wall Street banks are facing questions about the impact of falling oil prices.

While just a small fraction of their total loan portfolio is directly tied to energy lending, Bove estimates around 20% of their investment banking revenue comes from energy.

JPMorgan Chase(JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon, in a call with analysts this week, acknowledged there may be "slight negatives" for the bank related to commercial and real estate trouble in Dallas, Denver and Houston.

Yet the big banks are well diversified. That means they should benefit from the anticipated boost to consumer spending caused by lower oil prices.

The oil price slide is "not going to be a big deal" for JPMorgan, Dimon said.

Dimon did such a good job of calling the last recession in advance that I think that we all can rest easy based solely on his judgment, right? Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

Even if it's unlikely that oil-related industry woes will, alone, take the US economy down another black hole, you have to wonder whether, coupled with the global stock market retreat caused by China's reckless debt-funded economic expansion finally grinding to a halt and sliding backward, and what the ripple effects of that might be, if now might be the time to pull the plug, while the US economy, while not partying like it's 1999, sure as heck isn't slumbering like it's 2009. It's at least worth more than a passing thought.

Wallison Whales On Dodd-Frank

While he'll convince no one in love with Big Government of his thesis, the American Enterprise Institute's Peter Wallison is making the case that recent academic research supports the proposition that Dodd-Frank and other regulatory burdens imposed by the federal government in the wake of the economic recession of 2008 are hampering the economic recovery of the U.S. (hat tip to a community bank CEO and blog reader for sending me the link).

First, a study by Michael Bordo and Joseph Haubrich showed that recoveries after financial crises are actually sharper than other recoveries. After studying 27 recession-recovery cycles since 1882, they concluded that “the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis.” So we should have expected a steep recovery after the sharp 2008–09 recession rather than the stuttering and stalling economy we have experienced.

Also, studies of Dodd-Frank’s effect have shown that the regulatory burdens imposed by that law have been particularly harsh for community banks. The Fed defines community banks as banks with $10 billion in assets or less; 98.5 percent of all US banks fall into this category. A 2012 Government Accountability Office study showed that 7 of the 16 titles in Dodd-Frank had potential adverse effects for these banks, and studies by scholars at George Mason University and Harvard’s Kennedy School have found significant compliance cost increases attributable to Dodd-Frank. “Since the second quarter of 2010,” said the Harvard study, “around the time of [Dodd-Frank’s] passage, we found community banks’ share of [US banking] assets has shrunk drastically—over 12 percent.”

Of course, the regulatory costs to community banks are not a new story; Congress has been attempting to mitigate these costs for years. What is new is the data that shows the effect of these regulatory costs on small business and hence on economic growth.

Wallison asserts that the vast majority of small businesses (traditionally, the primary drivers of job growth) require bank financing because they do not have the access to capital markets that larger business have. Increased regulatory costs mean less credit. Less credit means slower growth. Slower growth means less job creation.

This is where the costs loaded on small banks begin to affect US economic growth. Regulatory costs affect small banks more than large banks because the costs are largely fixed and large banks by definition have a bigger asset base over which to spread these costs.

When a small bank is required to hire a compliance officer, that is an employee who is not making loans or producing revenue. When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—set up by Dodd-Frank and the bane of small banks—sends out a 1,099-page regulation on mortgage lending, that means a community bank must engage a lawyer to interpret the new regulation, a compliance officer to apply the regulation in individual cases, and a tech firm to retool its mortgage underwriting system. All costs, no revenue, and fewer funds to lend. When a bank examiner criticizes a loan because the bank does not have audited financial statements for a customer who has never missed a payment in 20 years, that forces a bank to revise its business model and change its customer relationships. Again, costs for the bank and less financing for the small business.

If the costs Dodd-Frank has imposed on small banks are hurting small business, we should see a significant difference between the growth rates of small and large businesses since 2010. That is exactly what the data shows. In a Goldman Sachs report published in April 2015 and titled “The Two-Speed Economy,” the authors found that firms with more than 500 employees grew faster after 2010—the year of Dodd-Frank’s enactment—than the best historical performance over the last four recoveries. These firms largely had access to the capital markets for credit. However, jobs at firms with fewer than 500 employees declined over this period, although this group had grown faster than the large-firm group in the last four recoveries.

Here, then, is the source of the slow recovery from the 2008–09 recession. Although 64 percent of net new jobs in the US economy between 2002 and 2010 came from employment by small business, this source of growth has disappeared since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. While larger firms have access to credit in the capital markets, millions of small firms, limited to borrowing from beleaguered community banks, are not getting the credit they need to grow and create jobs.

As I said above, Wallison won't convince the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren crowd with facts. One of the commenters to Wallison's article makes this point ably.

To blame the slow recovery on Dodd Frank is frankly hilarious. It defies logic. Big banks were the major contributors to the 2008 recession and their failure to re-inflate the lending system after the government had made them whole will go down as one the major acts of treachery against small business. Small banks are doing poorly for a far different reason. See the growth of a strong aggressive regional banking structure.

You'll notice that, unlike Wallison, no studies or statistics are cited by the commenter to back up his arguments or even his factual assertions, nor to counter those that support Wallison's arguments. Instead the basic ad hominem attack is made that Wallison's position is "hilarious."

No, it's anything but "hilarious." As people who have actually made a career in the community banking business understand, it is many things, but "hilarious" is not among them.

Community Banking: Back To The Motherland

A man who spent his working life successfully building a de novo community bank into a powerhouse that made himself and his fellow shareholders wealthy has started over using the same scheme. Unfortunately, this time around, he's not doing it in the United States.

You might call Vernon Hill a reverse Paul Revere. Most Americans like to believe that the U.S. is still a land of opportunity, the place where anyone can start a business and make a profit. But Mr. Hill issues a warning that rings loud and clear: The British—and others—are more inviting than we are.

“The regulatory environment has become so onerous in America that it is now easier to start a business in England than in the U.S.,” Mr. Hill says—and he would know.

That's right: the U.K. a nation that, 70 years ago, embraced the welfare state with open arms, is a better place to start and build a community bank than the land of the overregulated and the home of the Franken-Dodd Monster.

“When I went to Britain I thought the regulatory environment would be much worse,” he says. “It’s infinitely better there.”

The problem in the U.S. starts with towering federal regulations, such as the voluminous reporting and compliance rules in Dodd-Frank, the financial reform act that recently celebrated its fifth birthday. “Regulators are making it impossible for the medium and small banks to comply with the rules,” he says. “The burdens get so intense that it is destroying the small and medium-size banks in America.”

The result is that Dodd-Frank, a law intended to take on the systemic risk of “too-big-to-fail” banks, is multiplying the problem. “The big banks that are too big to fail are bigger now than ever, but the regulations have trickled down to the smaller banks that didn’t cause the financial crisis” Mr. Hill says. As a result, community banks are disappearing. “When I started my first bank in the 1970s there were 24,000 banks in America,” he says. “There are now 7,000 banks. It may soon be 500 or even fewer.”

According to Hill, Dodd-Frank is not the only spewer of regulatory offal. The BSA and the CRA get equal billing as soul crushers.

“The feds have taken anti-money-laundering rules to the extreme,” Mr. Hill says. “We have to monitor every deposit account every 24 hours. Somebody’s monitoring your account every day.” That’s invasive and expensive.

He laments that the Community Reinvestment Act, a catalyst of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, still hasn’t been repealed. “We are literally required to make loans that we know are going to fail,” he says.

Finally, the little guys are also being beaten down by the Mini Me's of red tape.

Then there’s the tangle of local regulations that every American small business must cut through. “You don’t need a building permit in Britain. Here [the U.S.] you have to get permits and you have to get inspections,” he says. All that can eat up months and months. “I can build 100 branch banks in Britain before I can get one built in the U.S., thanks to regulators.”

The linked article gives details on how Hill personally made hundreds of millions for himself (and billions for all of the shareholders) in the U.S. and how he's on the path to do the same thing in the U.K. It also gives his parting advice for US regulators.

What to do with banks that are too big to fail? Mr. Hill doesn’t hesitate. “You have to make them smaller,” he says. “You break them up.” He says that at one point there was a rule that barred any one bank from holding more than 10% of the country’s deposits, but that some institutions, such as Bank of America, have now edged above that figure. He views that as dangerous.

And how much should we be worried about overregulation—or competition from abroad? “Here’s my story in a nutshell and I hope Washington is paying close attention,” Mr. Hill says. “A very successful American business model has been transferred to Britain, where it’s even more successful because it doesn’t have to deal with the same burdens of government.”

He continues: “The politicians keep talking about fairness and helping the little guy. But it’s the little startup businesses that get hurt the most from the heavy hand of excessive government regulation. How is that fair?"

It's not fair. That's why Hill's "outta here" and "over there." He may be starting a trend.