Tuesday, July 10, 2012

U.S. likely at 'maximum employment,' Richmond Fed president says

Welcome to the morning roundup. Here's a look at what's news in banking and finance.

U.S. at 'maximum employment.' Richmond Fed president Jeff Lacker says the country could be near the "maximum employment" point beyond which monetary policy can't spur more jobs, Bloomberg reports. The unemployment rate remains elevated at 8.2 percent in the U.S., but Lacker believes there's not much more the Federal Reserve can do. He's dissented on the last four Fed decisions.

Bank swaps. Big banks could soon have to put up extra money and trade swaps through a clearinghouse, as set out in Dodd-Frank, the Wall Street Journal reports. Regulators could vote on a rule today. It's intended to add more transparency to the derivatives market.

ATM 'vigilantes.' Banks are trying to get a law changed that requires banks to display notices on ATMs that noncustomers could be charged fees both on the screen and with a physical notice on or around the machine. The industry says it's allowing people to seek out ATMs with a missing notice sticker and then file a lawsuit, or to remove the sticker themselves and sue, The New York Times says. A couple in Michigan has reportedly filed dozens of lawsuits.

Barclays bonuses. Former Barclays CEO Bob Diamond has given up about $31 million in bonuses as British regulators continue to pressure the bank after settling charges that it rigged the Libor interest rate, the Wall Street Journal reports. Diamond and chairman Marcus Agius were forced to resign.

JPM risk. After JPMorgan Chase's $2 billion-plus trading losses, regulators are likely to begin requiring more information about how banks calculate risk, Bloomberg says. JPMorgan changed its risk formula earlier in the year without telling investors, originally shielding the mounting losses.


Anonymous said...

There certainly IS something the Fed could do to help the economy: shut down.

Garth Vader said...

I pointed out yesterday that it is 100% impossible for Barclays to have "rigged" LIBOR rates on its own.

Why then are you parroting the lie that this is a situation where Barclays acted alone?