I have just finished reading the report on the HBOS failure by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. It is a fascinating report into why HBOS failed and the extent of the bank's risk taking in the years leading up to the crisis. The press has focussed on how the report criticises the bank's former executives and chairman. However, the FSA (the UK's financial regulator at the time of HBOS's failure) also comes in for heavy criticism. There is also a suggestion in the report that the Government's ring-fence proposals to make the banking system safer would not have prevented HBOS from failing as it had no investment banking activities. Unsurprisingly, there is no criticism of the politicians who allowed (and encouraged?) banks to pursue aggressive asset growth in the 2000s!
Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne...