x
Breaking News
0

Exclusive: U.S. regulators offer Congress olive branch on loans

PoliticsDec 07, 2017 02:10PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO - The U.S. Capitol Building is lit at sunset in Washington

By Jonathan Schwarzberg and Davide Scigliuzzo

NEW YORK (LPC/IFR) - U.S. regulators said they are open to revising restrictions on leveraged lending, offering an olive branch to a GOP-controlled Congress keen to roll back banking regulations.

The three main U.S. bank regulatory agencies, in recent letters seen by Reuters, said they could revisit the guidelines they put in place in 2013.

Critics say those guidelines have hampered business, and members of Congress started pressing for a rollback shortly after Donald Trump's inauguration as president.

In theory, the guidelines prevent banks from loaning money when doing so would put the borrower's leverage at six times or higher, or for companies that could not quickly pay down debt.

They were broadly intended to prevent the kind of egregious and wanton lending widely seen as contributing to the last global financial crisis.

US Senator Pat Toomey asked the Government Accountability Office - the investigative arm of Congress - if the guidelines rose to the level of formal rules.

The GAO decided in October that they do, meaning Congress has the right to amend or eliminate the guidelines - which many bankers feel have hampered growth - altogether.

But to forestall that development, the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said they could seek further feedback on the guidelines.

The three agencies sent their letters to Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, head of the House Financial Services Subcommittee, who asked them to stop enforcing the guidelines.

"This is positive," said Richard Farley, head of the leveraged finance group at law firm Kramer Levin.

"It seems both Congress and regulators are looking towards a revised guidance from the agencies to avoid the 2013 guidance being revoked and leaving the market in limbo."

POLITICAL ARENA

Several specialists with knowledge of the situation said the response from regulators indicated a desire to avoid a protracted battle with a Congress inclined against regulation.

Under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress is entitled to review - and vote to eliminate - formal regulations issued by government agencies.

Senator Toomey asked the GAO to decide whether the leveraged lending guidelines, created after the financial crisis, rose to the level of regulations that fall under the Act.

Experts say the three agencies have decided to revisit the guidelines, rather than risk a fight on Capitol Hill that could limit the ability to issue similar guidance in future.

Two people closely following the matter said the regulators had given Congress the opportunity to declare victory, while preserving their prerogatives.

Both described the decision as a purely political one that had little to do with the actual leveraged lending restrictions.

"If Congress votes them down, then the agencies are basically barred from coming back," said Jacques Schillaci, a banking regulation specialist at law firm Linklaters.

"If the agencies now come out with something that addresses the concerns and gives banks a bit more leeway, it gives Toomey the ability to say: we got what we wanted."

The three agencies declined to comment. Requests for comment went unanswered by the offices of Luetkemeyer and Toomey.

LOAN ARRANGERS

Bankers have frequently complained that the guidelines do not prevent highly leveraged lending from occurring, but only keep their own regulated institutions from getting the business.

Instead, they say, lenders not subject to the guidelines, such as non-bank investment firms, get to pick up the business that they cannot touch - and the numbers suggest they are right.

According to data from LPC, two-thirds of leveraged buyouts through the first three quarters of 2017 had leverage above six times - and more than 26% topped seven times.

The last time the percentage of LBOs with seven times leverage was this high was in 2007, just before the financial crisis kicked in.

And not all of that is from institutions exempt from the guidelines: mainstream banks are still able to arrange deals well in excess of the six-times leverage threshold.

This can be done by inflating a company's Ebitda through adjustments - which makes the leverage seem smaller - or by showing the company can generate enough cash to bring leverage down quickly thereafter.

Recent financings for Tekni-Plex and Avantor, for example, were all marketed with leverage of around or above seven times.

Whatever the methodology, the fact that the guidelines have not entirely prevented leverage topping six times suggests to some in the market that the fuss about them is overblown.

"The leveraged lending guidelines are a non-issue," said Jay Ptashek, a leveraged finance partner at law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

"People understand the guard rails and are complying, whatever that means. Leverage is generally being maxed out within those guidelines."

Exclusive: U.S. regulators offer Congress olive branch on loans
 

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind: 

  • Enrich the conversation
  • Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
  • Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically.
  •  Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and links within a comment will be removed
  • Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user.
  • Don’t Monopolize the Conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also believe strongly in giving everyone a chance to air their thoughts. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Write your thoughts here
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
Post
Post also to:
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
Post 1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Disclaimer: Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. All CFDs (stocks, indexes, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but rather by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Therefore Fusion Media doesn`t bear any responsibility for any trading losses you might incur as a result of using this data.

Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any liability for loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information including data, quotes, charts and buy/sell signals contained within this website. Please be fully informed regarding the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email