Tag Archives: banking

Student-Loan Processor Navient to Cancel $1.7 Billion of Debts

A former unit of student loan giant Sallie Mae said it would cancel $1.7 billion in private student debt for about 66,000 borrowers to resolve claims that it engaged in deceptive lending practices.

Navient Corp.

NAVI 0.37%

, a student loan servicer that split off from Sallie Mae in 2014, agreed to the sum in a settlement with 40 state attorneys general. The loans are private loans, so the losses will be covered by Navient’s investors rather than the federal government.

Nearly all the canceled loans originated at Sallie Mae from 2002 to 2010, at a time when student debt soared, on its way to becoming the second-highest form of household credit after mortgages. Sallie Mae was at the forefront of that boom, both as the biggest originator of private loans as well as the biggest lender under a federal program that guaranteed student loans.

The loans primarily went to borrowers with poor credit, and who attended schools with shaky records, including many for-profit schools, according to a website run by the settlement administrator. All of the loans forgiven in the agreement were in default.

“For too long, Navient contributed to the national student debt crisis by deceptively trapping thousands of students into more debt,” said New York Attorney General

Letitia James.

As part of the agreement, Navient continued to deny the claims or that the company has harmed any borrowers. “The company’s decision to resolve these matters, which were based on unfounded claims, allows us to avoid the additional burden, expense, time and distraction to prevail in court,” said

Mark Heleen,

Navient’s chief legal officer.

Navient has faced numerous lawsuits in recent years that alleged the company engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct against borrowers, including steering those with federal loans toward plans that would allow them to stop making payments but in which interest continued to accrue, rather than toward plans in which monthly payments are tied to borrowers’ income.

Last March, a Seattle-area judge ruled that the company had broken a consumer protection law in a case brought by Washington’s attorney general.

“Navient repeatedly and deliberately put profits ahead of its borrowers—it engaged in deceptive and abusive practices, targeted students who it knew would struggle to pay loans back and placed an unfair burden on people trying to improve their lives through education,” Pennsylvania Attorney General

Josh Shapiro

said.

WSJ higher-education reporter Melissa Korn breaks down the select groups of borrowers who are currently eligible for student debt relief and what borrowers can expect next year. Photo: Getty Images

The agreements resolve all six outstanding state lawsuits against Navient, the company said. As part of the settlement, the company will make a one-time payment of approximately $145 million to the states.

In addition to loan cancellation and some restitution for borrowers with private loans, Navient will pay $95 million to about 350,000 federal loan borrowers—or about $260 each—who were placed into certain types of forbearance programs that caused them to accumulate more debt rather than entering income-based repayment plans, the states said.

States will distribute restitution to borrowers within their jurisdictions. Massachusetts, for example, will receive more than $6 million, including $2.2 million in restitution for more than 8,300 federal loan borrowers, state Attorney General

Maura Healey

said.

Federal loan borrowers eligible for restitution will be notified by mail this spring, with checks going out in the middle of the year, according to the settlement administrator’s website. Private borrowers who qualify for discharge will be notified by July.

Private loans without federal backing make up less than 10% of the total $1.7 trillion student-loan industry. About 43 million people owe $1.6 trillion in federal student debt, Education Department data show. About 5.2 million of those federal borrowers are in default. Those borrowers, unless they also held private student loans, aren’t affected by Thursday’s settlement.

Navient recently announced its exit from federal student-loan processing. It had been one of the primary federal contractors, serving around six million borrowers. Its accounts were transferred to a new contractor,

Maximus,

whose role was approved by the Education Department.

The Education Department also has taken steps to forgive billions in debt held by disabled borrowers, as well as borrowers who went to institutions that federal regulators say practiced deceptive recruiting practices, such as ITT Technical Institute. The piecemeal moves have resulted in $11.5 billion in canceled debt for around 600,000 borrowers over President

Biden’s

first year in office. Student loan payments have been suspended by the government during the pandemic, with the latest extension now set to expire on May 1.

The Biden administration is in the midst of restructuring its student-loan processing system. In November it announced it was ending its relationship with private collection agencies that had been tasked with recovering payments from federal student-loan borrowers in default to improve collections and provide borrowers with more support.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been suing Navient since 2017 over allegations that it steered borrowers into postponing payments instead of entering lower-cost, income-driven repayment plans. The CFPB has said the practice cost borrowers $4 billion in interest expense. Navient has disputed the government’s claims.

Write to Gabriel T. Rubin at gabriel.rubin@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Bank of America to Cut Overdraft Fees to $10 From $35

Bank of America Corp. said Tuesday it would cut overdraft fees to $10 from $35 beginning in May, following other big banks that have rolled back or ditched such charges.

Overdraft fees, which are charged when customers don’t have enough cash in their accounts to cover their purchases, are under scrutiny by regulators and politicians who say they unfairly exploit cash-strapped families. Under the Biden administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have pressed banks to scale them back. In a December report, the CFPB flagged Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. on their overdraft fees.

Read original article here

Citadel Securities to Receive First Outside Investment

Citadel Securities is set to receive its first outside investment in a deal valuing the electronic-trading firm majority-owned by hedge fund billionaire

Ken Griffin

at around $22 billion.

Venture-capital firm Sequoia Capital and cryptocurrency investor Paradigm have agreed to invest $1.15 billion in the Chicago-based firm, the company told The Wall Street Journal. Sequoia partner

Alfred Lin

will also join Citadel Securities’ board.

Citadel Securities is managed separately from Citadel, the $43 billion hedge fund on which Mr. Griffin built his fortune, estimated by Forbes at $21.3 billion. Founded in 2002, Citadel Securities has grown into a global giant that trades equities, options, futures, bonds and other assets, handling about 27% of the shares that change hands in the U.S. stock market each day, according to its website. Much of that volume comes from processing trades for online brokerages such as

Robinhood Markets Inc.

The deal will give Citadel Securities capital to continue expanding globally, the company said, and could be a precursor to an initial public offering for the business. There is no guarantee the firm will go ahead with a listing, and there are no plans to launch one imminently.

Sequoia, one of the country’s largest venture firms with roughly $80 billion under management, has backed companies including Airbnb Inc. and Google before they were publicly traded. Paradigm is focused on crypto and Web3, a reimagining of the internet, areas Citadel Securities is likely to incorporate in the future as they become more regulated.

To date, Mr. Griffin has been a crypto skeptic and avoided trading digital currencies in his businesses even as they have soared in price and popularity. In October, he said Citadel Securities didn’t trade crypto because of a lack of regulatory clarity.

The explosion in trading volumes and volatility across financial markets during the coronavirus pandemic boosted Citadel Securities’ revenue. In 2020, net trading revenue was $6.7 billion, almost double the previous high in 2018. Net trading revenue in 2021 was even higher, according to a person familiar with the matter. Citadel Securities has been led by Chief Executive Peng Zhao since 2017.

Last year’s Reddit-fueled trading frenzy in

GameStop Corp.

and other so-called meme stocks drew attention to Citadel Securities’ relationship with online brokerages.

Following the GameStop trading frenzy, the SEC is expected to take a fresh look at payment for order flow, a decades-old practice that’s at the heart of how commission-free trading works. WSJ explains what it is, and why critics say it is bad for investors. Illustration: Jacob Reynolds/WSJ

Some small investors active on social media have accused Citadel Securities of masterminding the Jan. 28, 2021, trading restrictions in which brokerages limited customers’ ability to buy GameStop and a number of other stocks. Citadel Securities has denied any role in the trading restrictions, which punctured a huge rally in meme stocks. Brokerages have said they imposed the curbs to address large margin calls from the clearinghouse for U.S. stock trades. In November, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Robinhood and Citadel Securities of colluding to stop investors from buying meme stocks, citing a lack of evidence.

Still, the episode fueled regulatory scrutiny of the firm and its business practices. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman

Gary Gensler

has floated the idea of banning payment for order flow, the practice in which trading firms pay brokerages such as Robinhood and TD Ameritrade for handling their customers’ orders. Citadel Securities paid more than $1.1 billion for order flow during the first nine months of 2021, making it the biggest source of such payments, Bloomberg Intelligence data shows.

Mr. Griffin has considered deal making previously. The Journal reported in 2015 that Citadel was considering going public, a move that the hedge-fund firm had also weighed before the financial crisis. The Journal in 2019 reported Blackstone had been in talks to buy a stake in both Citadel Securities and Citadel, with firm executives estimating at the time the hedge fund had a value of between $5 billion and $7 billion.

Write to Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com and Alexander Osipovich at alexander.osipovich@dowjones.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

GameStop Entering NFT and Cryptocurrency Markets as Part of Turnaround Plan

GameStop Corp.

GME 1.28%

is launching a division to develop a marketplace for nonfungible tokens and establish cryptocurrency partnerships, according to people familiar with its plans, pushing the company into much-hyped areas as it tries to turn around its core videogame business.

The retailer has hired more than 20 people to run the unit, which is building an online hub for buying, selling and trading NFTs of virtual videogame goods such as avatar outfits and weapons, according to the people. The company is asking select game developers and publishers to list NFTs on its marketplace when it launches later this year, the people said.

GameStop also is close to signing partnerships with two crypto companies to share technology and co-invest in the development of games that use blockchain and NFT technology, as well as other NFT-related projects, the people said. The retailer expects to enter into similar agreements with a dozen or more crypto companies and invest tens of millions of dollars in them this year, the people said.

Grapevine, Texas-based GameStop has been working to reset its business after years of losses. The company was at the center of a stock-trading frenzy last year that dramatically boosted its share price, which rode a surge in interest and optimism from individual investors. Many saw potential in GameStop despite the pandemic’s negative impact on foot traffic and even though consumers have been increasingly opting to download and stream games over the internet, rather than buy the kind of hard copies that the company specializes in selling.

Last year, GameStop overhauled its executive team and board of directors, naming activist investor

Ryan Cohen

as chairman. Mr. Cohen, who co-founded online pet-products retailer

Chewy Inc.

and sold it for $3.35 billion in 2017, has been pushing to make GameStop more tech-centric.

The turnaround effort has yet to show significant results in GameStop’s financial performance. In the quarter through October, the company said revenues grew, but its loss widened compared with the same period a year earlier. The revenue growth came from sales of hardware and accessories, while revenue from game software slipped 2%.

“We believe our emphasis on the long term is positioning us to build what will ultimately become a much larger business,” GameStop Chief Executive

Matt Furlong

said on an earnings call with analysts last month. Mr. Furlong, who joined the company last year from

Amazon.com Inc.,

then mentioned that GameStop was exploring business opportunities involving blockchain and NFT technologies.

There are signs some investors are losing patience. GameStop shares have plunged by more than 45% over the past six weeks, though the stock remains far above where it was when investors started piling into GameStop shares a year ago.

Terms like “nonfungible token,” “minting,” “gas fees” and more sound like a foreign language to you? To better understand it—and explain it—WSJ’s Joanna Stern turned her son’s art into an NFT on the Ethereum blockchain. Photo illustration: Jacob Reynolds

Diving into the crypto and NFT space puts GameStop on a rapidly growing list of companies trying to cash in on these nascent and largely unproven technologies. A handful of NFT marketplaces already exist and some feature tokens from game publishers. Earlier this week, a marketplace called OpenSea said it raised $300 million in venture capital and is now valued at $13.3 billion, greater than GameStop’s valuation of close to $10 billion.

The videogame industry is likely to play a major role in the adoption of cryptocurrency, NFTs and blockchain technology, analysts say. Gamers are expected to be among the first to embrace the technologies because they are already spending a lot on virtual goods. Virtual real estate in videogames, as well as videogame collectibles, are a rapidly growing segment of the NFT market.

In recent weeks, some of the industry’s biggest publicly traded videogame companies have launched or announced plans to sell NFTs, including

Ubisoft Entertainment,

Zynga Inc.

and

Square Enix Holdings Co.

Some industry executives and players, though, have expressed concerns about the value of NFTs and developers’ motives for creating them.

By getting into the crypto and NFT space while it is still in its infancy, GameStop hopes to avoid missing out on opportunities to be part of a budding trend as it did with computer-game downloads about a decade ago, the people familiar with its plans said. GameStop tried to get into the streaming of videogames at the time but abandoned the effort. Today, the downloading and streaming of games are rapidly growing trends.

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Bitcoin Could Hit $100,000 if Investors Treat It Like Gold, Goldman Sachs Says

Text size

The publicly available float of Bitcoin is just under $700 billion.


Dreamstime

Bitcoin could be worth $100,000 if investors accept the premise that it really is digital gold, according to a report by


Goldman Sachs
.

At its current price around $46,800, Bitcoin has a market cap of $870 billion, compared with $2.6 trillion for gold held by the public for investment purposes, such as privately held bars and assets in exchange-traded funds.

The publicly available float of Bitcoin is just under $700 billion, as a considerable amount of Bitcoin doesn’t trade, according to Goldman. That implies that Bitcoin consists of 20% of the entire “store of value” market—Bitcoin plus gold, assuming gold at current prices around $1,800 an ounce with 44,000 metric tons in circulation for investment purposes.

Bitcoin could get to $100,000 if its market share of the “store of value” market were to increase to 50%, estimates Goldman analyst Zach Pandl. “We think that Bitcoin’s market share will most likely rise over time as a byproduct of broader adoption of digital assets,” he wrote in a note published Tuesday.

Hitting $100,000 implies Bitcoin would see annualized returns of 17% over the next five years. The target doesn’t assume demand growth for “store of value” assets, and it factors in the supply growth of Bitcoin, with about 900 coins minted every 24 hours at the current production rate (scheduled to halve in early 2024).

Yet Bitcoin won’t have a straight shot to $100,000—if it ever gets there. “The network’s consumption of real resources may remain an important obstacle to institutional adoption,” Pandl writes, flicking at the energy consumption toll that Bitcoin mining takes.

That is no trivial matter. Many countries are trying to reduce their carbon emissions, and Bitcoin mining—a global network of computers processing transactions—doesn’t help. Bitcoin miners are consuming 0.56% of the world’s electricity consumption, similar to the amount used by countries like Norway or Sweden, according to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index.

Some of that energy comes from renewables, but Bitcoin is also being mined from coal, oil, and natural gas-fired plants. And it’s getting tougher to justify in countries facing crippling energy shortages and soaring prices.

In Kazakhstan, where mining has taken off after China banned the practice, protesters stormed government buildings on Wednesday over soaring energy prices. The country’s telecom provider shut down internet access, cutting off Bitcoin miners.

Bitcoin may be far more appealing than other cryptos as a store of value, given its hard cap on supply. But it is also competing against other cryptos for investment dollars. The overall market is worth $2.2 trillion, including $450 billion in Ether and $85 billion in Binance Coin. And unlike many cryptos that are finding uses as “smart contracts” for trading cryptos, lending, and minting new digital assets like nonfungible tokens, Bitcoin’s primary use case and appeal may be as an alternative to gold.

Working in Bitcoin’s favor is that investors are now worried about inflation and the impact of soaring global money supplies, potentially depreciating national currencies. That could help Bitcoin in the long run, since its supply is capped at 21 million coins, with 18.9 million already produced.

But Bitcoin hasn’t been acting like an inflation beater lately. Prices have been flat for months.

Bitcoin has done better than gold in the past year: Bitcoin is up 15% from early January 2021, versus a 6.8% decline for the


SPDR Gold Shares

ETF (ticker: GLD). But gold has beaten Bitcoin in the past three months, with the Gold Shares ETF up 6% and Bitcoin slumping about 10%.

Timing, it seems, may matter just as much with digital gold as it does with the real thing.

Corrections & Amplifications

Bitcoin has a market cap of $870 billion. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the market cap was $870 million.

Write to Daren Fonda at daren.fonda@barrons.com

Read original article here

The Warren-Biden Bank Heist – WSJ

Elizabeth Warren

finally got her woman—that is, the Senator and her many acolytes in the Biden Administration have succeeded in ousting

Jelena McWilliams

as chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The coup deserves attention because of its norm-breaking precedent and what it signals for bank mergers and supposedly independent regulatory agencies.

Ms. McWilliams resigned on Dec. 31, effective Feb. 4, to avoid more turmoil at the bank regulator. But as she wrote in these pages on Dec. 16, her resignation comes amid a concerted and unprecedented political effort to strip her of authority before her term as chair expires in June 2023.

***

The coup has been led by

Rohit Chopra,

the Warren protege who now runs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is one of four current members of the FDIC board (one post is vacant). The FDIC’s longstanding practice and bylaws, based on its interpretation of the law, is that the chair sets the board’s agenda.

Every administration for 88 years has honored that understanding, including the supposedly norm-breaking Trump Administration. Democrat

Martin Gruenberg

was allowed to continue as chair until June 2018 after President Trump took office, and no one attempted to oust him.

Enter the Warren-Biden progressives in a hurry. The Senate confirmed Mr. Chopra on Sept. 30 on a 50-48 vote, and as soon as Oct. 31 he presented Ms. McWilliams with a request for information (RFI) on bank mergers. When she said the draft RFI would have to be vetted by FDIC staff, Mr. Chopra publicly released his own RFI without authority from his post at the CFPB, which the FDIC was obliged to contradict.

Mr. Chopra then moved to neuter Ms. McWilliams by other means. He has asked the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department for an opinion on whether Ms. McWilliams can set the agency’s agenda. In a Dec. 14 statement, Mr. Chopra also threatened to “take further steps to exercise independence from management” of the FDIC.

This distorts the meaning of agency “independence,” which is supposed to be from the executive branch. Mr. Chopra cites President Biden’s July 9 executive order referring to bank mergers, but the FDIC has long held that it is not subject to executive orders on policy. Mr. Chopra wants to make the FDIC a de facto part of the Biden Administration. Who knew the left endorsed the originalist constitutional theory of the “unitary executive”?

Our sources say the plan was for Mr. Chopra and his allies on the board—Mr. Gruenberg and acting Comptroller of the Currency

Michael Hsu

—to change the FDIC bylaws and strip Ms. McWilliams of her power. Ms. McWilliams made the honorable decision to spare the agency more internal fighting, but her resignation means Mr. Chopra will now essentially run the show. Mr. Gruenberg will become acting chair. He will follow where Mr. Chopra wants to go, as he showed by signing a joint statement with Mr. Chopra on his draft RFI on Dec. 9.

The real power behind all this is Sen. Warren, who has planted her aides and camp followers throughout the Biden Administration. She may have lost the 2020 Democratic primaries to Mr. Biden, but she has colonized the government’s financial regulatory offices.

Her former staffer,

Bharat Ramamurti,

is deputy director of the White House National Economic Council. His fingerprints were all over the failed nomination of Saule Omarova to be Comptroller of the Currency.

Wally Adeyemo,

who helped Ms. Warren establish the CFPB, is now deputy Treasury secretary. Lina Khan runs the Federal Trade Commission.

Graham Steele,

a former aide to Warren Senate ally

Sherrod Brown,

is assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions. There are many others.

One result is that Treasury Secretary

Janet Yellen

seems to have little influence over financial regulation. Ms. Omarova wasn’t her choice for Comptroller. Ms. McWilliams sought her support for the FDIC’s traditional independence, but Ms. Yellen refused. Her main job these days seems to be telling the public not to worry about inflation.

***

What do these Warren cadres hope to accomplish? One clear goal is greater influence over the allocation of credit. Using regulation to squeeze financing for fossil fuels will be a priority. Bank mergers are a political target because regulatory approval can be exploited as a tolling station to coerce money for “local communities,” to use Mr. Chopra’s euphemism for progressive political groups.

Mr. Chopra also wants to reinterpret the law to make it easier to block bank mergers, notably those that have more than $100 billion in assets. This is a coordinated effort. His Dec. 9 RFI mentioned that figure. On Dec. 10

Maxine Waters

sent a letter to federal officials urging a moratorium on bank mergers above $100 billion. On Dec. 17 the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division issued a press release praising Mr. Chopra and promising heightened antitrust review of bank mergers.

The irony is that regional banks are merging to gain economies of scale to compete with giant banks. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act increased compliance costs, which the biggest banks find easier to afford. Blocking mergers of regional banks will enhance the market power of JP Morgan and Bank of America.

By undermining the independence of federal agencies, Democrats are also creating a precedent that the GOP will follow. The next Republican President will promptly fire the next FDIC chair, among other officials.

The FDIC coup should also focus the Senate’s attention on Mr. Biden’s pending nominees for the Federal Reserve, another supposedly independent bank regulator. Anyone who endorses the FDIC coup shouldn’t be confirmed.

Democrats claim that Trump Republicans broke political norms, and sometimes they did. But one reason is that they see how progressives trample norms when they have power. Watch the Warren left in action.

Journal Editorial Report: What’s Plan B for a faltering legislative program? Images: Bloomberg/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Santander Sent $175 Million on Christmas Due to Technical Error

A general view of the Santander headquarters on May 18, 2012 in London, England.
Photo: Dan Kitwood (Getty Images)

Tens of thousands of people in the United Kingdom probably thought they had been especially good this past year when they saw their bank accounts on Christmas Day, all of which had more money than they expected. Alas, Santa Claus doesn’t have enough cash in his reserves to justify the roughly $176 million in payments, but European bank Santander does, and it would like its money back, please.

It’s come to light in recent days that due to a “technical issue,” Santander UK sent out millions to about 75,000 people and companies on Dec. 25 that were not supposed to receive that money. First reported by the Times of London, the payments were sent to individuals who had already been paid by one of 2,000 businesses with accounts at Santander.

The bank essentially paid these people a second time, although the money for the extra payment came from its own coffers. That’s got to hurt, but it’s probably way less painful than the wrath of 2,000 customers if the situation have been reversed.

According to the New York Times, many of the 75,000 people who received the payments were customers of rival banks, including Barclays, HSBC, and Virgin Money. In a statement to the outlet, Santander UK apologized for the error and said it would work with its rivals to get the money back. It will also be using its own processes in the operation, but did not specify what those were.

“We’re sorry that due to a technical issue, some payments from our corporate clients were incorrectly duplicated on the recipients’ accounts,” the bank told the Times. “None of our clients were at any point left out of pocket as a result, and we will be working hard with many banks across the U.K. to recover the duplicated transactions over the coming days.”

Gizmodo reached out to Santander UK on Saturday to learn more about the technical error that occurred and ask what consumers who received the mistaken payment should do in response. We haven’t heard back yet, but we’ll make sure to update this article if we do.

Although it was the bank’s mistake, the people who received the money could end up in the most trouble, especially if they spend it. (Maybe I’ve watched too many dramas but spending money that mysteriously ends up in your account sounds like a recipe for disaster).

Take the cautionary tale of Kelyn Spadoni, a 911 dispatcher in Louisiana who in early 2021 received $1.2 million from Charles Schwab, her brokerage firm, by mistake. In fact, the company originally meant to deposit just $82.56 into her Fidelity account. Spadoni proceeded to buy a car and a house within a day of getting the money and refused to answer Charles Schwab when it contacted her asking for the money.

Last year, Spadoni was arrested for theft, fraud, and illegal transfer of monetary funds. In the end, Charles Schwab was able to recover about 75% of the money, but it’s not clear what happened to the rest.

Folks, we’ve already got too many problems, so let’s do ourselves a favor in 2022: Don’t spend money unless you signed for it and know where it comes from.

Read original article here

FDIC chair, a Trump holdover, resigns after partisan fight goes public

The Republican chair of the FDIC will step down on Feb. 4 – more than a year ahead of schedule – in the wake of a messy public battle over who should set the agenda for the normally apolitical banking regulatory agency.

Jelena McWilliams, who was appointed to head the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. by President Donald Trump in 2018, said Friday that she will cut her five-year term short after an internal power struggle spilled into public view last month.

“When I immigrated to this country 30 years ago, I did so with a firm belief in the American system of government,” the Yugoslavia-born McWilliams wrote in a resignation letter to President Joe Biden that made no mention of the partisan brawl. “It has been a tremendous honor to serve this nation, and I did not take a single day for granted.”

In December, McWilliams, the only Trump holdover on the five-member board, accused her Democratic colleagues of staging a “hostile takeover” after they attempted to wrest control of its agenda from her and engineer a vote on changes to the rules governing bank mergers.

FDIC board member Martin Gruenberg will become acting chair. 
Bloomberg via Getty Images

The shakeup will hand full control of the typically bipartisan board to Democrats, fanning progressives’ hopes for major banking-industry changes. McWilliams, for example, had refused to sign off on a federal report that identified climate change as a threat to the nation’s financial system.

McWilliams’ surprise announcement came three weeks after Saule Omarova, Biden’s controversial nominee for the role of comptroller of the currency, was forced to withdraw from consideration after her radical views on the nation’s banking system drew fire from senators of both parties.

Read original article here

Credit Suisse Fund Accuses SoftBank Over $440 Million Investment

A

Credit Suisse Group AG

CS 1.68%

fund accused

SoftBank Group Corp.

9984 -0.59%

in U.S. court filings of orchestrating transactions that rendered worthless a $440 million investment the fund had made to finance a SoftBank-backed company.

The filing, made Thursday in a U.S. District Court in California, asks a federal judge to permit the Credit Suisse fund to serve a subpoena on a U.S. arm of SoftBank. The filing, which says that the fund is preparing to sue SoftBank in the U.K., deepens the dispute over the demise of Greensill Capital, a supply-chain finance company that tumbled into insolvency earlier this year.

Greensill made loans to companies that served as advances on expected payments from those companies’ customers; Greensill packaged the loans into securities, which investment funds run by Credit Suisse bought.

One such company was Katerra Inc., a U.S. construction startup. The Credit Suisse fund held $440 million in notes backed by Greensill’s lending to Katerra, and when Katerra ran into financial trouble last year, Greensill forgave the lending.

SoftBank was an investor in both Greensill and Katerra, and in the U.S. court filing the Credit Suisse fund said SoftBank “orchestrated a deal” that cut the fund out of any possible proceeds without telling the fund.

A SoftBank spokesman declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for Credit Suisse.

SoftBank put money into Greensill at the end of 2020, and Credit Suisse executives expected that money would go to their funds to make good on the Katerra loan—instead, it ended up in Greensill’s German banking unit, The Wall Street Journal reported in April.

In June, the Journal reported that Credit Suisse had dissolved a personal banking relationship with SoftBank founder

Masayoshi Son

and clamped down on transactions with the company.

The court filing made Thursday is known as a Section 1782 petition, in which a party can ask a U.S. court to order evidence-gathering for a proceeding outside the U.S. The Credit Suisse fund argues that it has taken enough steps toward suing SoftBank in the U.K. to justify the subpoena, which seeks a variety of documents.

Write to Charles Forelle at charles.forelle@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Bank of Montreal to Buy BNP Paribas’s U.S. Unit

BNP Paribas SA

BNPQY -2.15%

said Monday that it has agreed to sell Bank of the West to

Bank of Montreal

BMO -2.80%

for $16.3 billion, in one of the largest recent bank deals.

The all-cash deal would facilitate Bank of Montreal’s expansion into the U.S., where it has worked to build its presence in recent years. Combined, the banks would have some $870 billion in assets. The deal is expected to close in 2022.

Bank of the West operates commercial- and consumer-banking segments, in addition to specialized financing and other services. The San Francisco-based bank has around $89 billion of deposits, assets of about $105 billion and roughly 500 branches in the Midwest and West. It has been owned by France’s BNP since 1979.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that BNP and BMO, as Bank of Montreal is known, were in advanced talks and that a deal could be completed as soon as this week.

Bank of Montreal is the fourth-largest bank in Canada. Its U.S. division delivers about 38% of the bank’s revenue today, up from about 28% three years ago, Chief Executive

Darryl White

said on an investor call earlier this month. Earnings for the bank’s U.S. division rose 58% in the fourth quarter, compared with a 42% increase for its Canadian division.

In the U.S., BMO operates commercial, retail, wealth-management and capital-markets businesses. The bank has said it sees a major opportunity for growth in its U.S. wealth-management business.

BMO opened its first stateside branch in 1818, about a year after its founding. In the 1990s, it became the first Canadian bank to trade on the New York Stock Exchange. The firm has a market value of around $69 billion.

For larger Canadian lenders that want to expand, limited domestic options for growth have prompted them to look across the southern border.

Royal Bank of Canada,

the country’s second-largest lender, bought Los Angeles-based City National Corp. for $5.4 billion in 2015. Canada’s biggest bank,

Toronto-Dominion,

now operates more branches in the U.S. than in Canada.

European lenders that planted flags in the U.S. starting in the late 1980s have failed to gain much ground.

Royal Bank of Scotland Group

PLC sold out of

Citizens Financial Group Inc.

in 2015.

HSBC Holdings

PLC said last year it would close one-third of its U.S. branches.

BBVA of Spain agreed to sell its U.S. arm roughly a year ago to

PNC Financial Services Group Inc.

for around $11.6 billion in a deal that created the fifth-largest retail bank in the U.S.

While big bank mergers have been rare since the 2008 crisis, there have been more so far this year than any time since then.

But federal financial regulators have expressed interest in tamping down on the spate of mergers. Democratic members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s board have in recent weeks pushed to review regulations around big-bank mergers. Banking-industry officials fear that such a review by the FDIC or other regulators, namely the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, could result in stricter controls on larger deals.

The continued consolidation of financial institutions leaves consumers with fewer banking options and reduces competition, progressive policy makers have argued. Regional banks see joining forces as the best way to fight paltry lending profits and the ever-rising outlays required to keep pace with the technology improvements of the largest banks.

Bloomberg reported Thursday that BMO had held initial talks about buying the BNP unit.

Write to Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com and Orla McCaffrey at orla.mccaffrey@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the December 20, 2021, print edition as ‘Bank of Montreal Seeks BNP U.S. Unit.’

Read original article here