By Justin Baer and Max Colchester
Eighteen years ago, Sanford Weill declared the dawn of a new era
in banking.
Mr. Weill, then chief executive of Travelers Group Inc., had
agreed to merge with John Reed's Citicorp, forging what would be
become the first financial supermarket to the world.
"Our company will be so diversified and in so many different
areas that we will be able to withstand" the inevitable downturns
to come, Mr. Weill said in April 1998.
Citigroup Inc., as it was christened, is still intact. But
confidence in the model Messrs. Weill and Reed espoused is in
decline.
After nearly two decades of breakneck expansion into ever more
countries and ever more businesses, global banks are in retreat.
For most of them, it is no longer a viable strategy to try to be
all things to all customers around the world.
A McKinsey & Co. review of 10 global banks, conducted for
The Wall Street Journal, found that those lenders were present on
average in 65 countries in 2008. By last year, the average
footprint had shrunk to 55 countries. And the McKinsey research
doesn't include Citigroup, which has unveiled plans in recent years
to exit retail-banking businesses in at least 20 nations.
The pace has quickened this year. Barclays PLC said it would
sell much of its business in Africa, while HSBC Holdings PLC is
pulling out of Brazil, one of about 83 businesses around the world
it has shed since 2011.
Mr. Weill, who retired as CEO in 2003, still sees value in being
global.
"The economy is a global village, and we need global financial
institutions that bring it together," he said in an interview.
"What would happen if we had a telecommunications system that was
locally based, and couldn't connect? It wouldn't be very good."
That view is now out of favor. Analysts have called for J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup to break up, and the issue of
whether banks are too big is a recurring topic on the presidential
campaign trail.
Pressured by stricter regulations, banks including Citi aren't
just shrinking their geographic footprint but also getting out of a
range of businesses that require too much capital or make too
little money, further eroding the model Mr. Weill helped
create.
In Europe, new CEOs at Barclays, Credit Suisse Group AG and
Deutsche Bank AG are putting in place restructuring plans that have
already been criticized by some investors for not going far enough
to slim down the banks.
The expansion of global banks was initially urged on by
investors, tempted by the promise of rich returns. Banks built
disparate franchises on the basis they could save money by offering
a wide number of services. By diversifying, the model offered
additional security and the impression that size alone would
produce safety.
"The financial crisis laid waste to that theory," said Fred
Cannon, director of research and Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a
boutique investment bank focused on financial companies.
Investors now complain that they can't get their heads around
huge opaque balance sheets. Large cross-border lenders have also
been deemed "globally systemic" by regulators and forced to set
aside billions of dollars more in capital.
Average precrisis return on equity of 14% has given way to the
new normal of about 7% for big global banks.
Investors also worry chief executives can't control franchises
that stretch across multiple countries and business lines.
George Mathewson, who leading up to the crisis helped build
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC into the world's biggest bank by
assets, is among those who now believes the global diversified bank
should become extinct.
"I don't believe in universal banking," he said in an interview.
"The cultural risks are just too great."
Two years after Mr. Mathewson left in 2006, RBS had to be saved
by U.K. taxpayers. Still majority state-owned, it is retreating
back to the U.K. and largely getting out of investment banking.
The solution, Mr. Mathewson believes, is to separate investment-
and retail-banking operations -- in essence keeping riskier
businesses segregated from more mundane units that hold deposits
and make loans.
That is similar to the idea promoted by some U.S. critics.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example,
co-sponsored legislation that would reinstate Glass-Steagall, the
landmark Depression-era measure that split investment-banking
activities from commercial and consumer lending.
Yet there are ardent defenders of the model -- most notably
James Dimon, Mr. Weill's onetime protégé, who now runs J.P.
Morgan.
J.P. Morgan navigated through the financial crisis better than
most of its peers and has since posted higher returns than most of
them. The country's biggest bank by assets, it continues to do
business in more than 100 countries.
"The reason we operate in these countries is not simply because
they represent new markets where we can sell our products," Mr.
Dimon said in April in his annual shareholder letter. He cited a
"huge network effect" from being able to get business from
sovereign clients and multinational corporations that operate in
those countries.
On average, Mr. Dimon said, only 40% of the business the bank
generates in a country is indigenous -- the rest comes from
advisory, financing and other services that cross borders.
Mr. Dimon acknowledged, though, that the bank had cut business
with many clients around the world because of anti-money-laundering
requirements, noting the "extraordinary legal risk if we were to
make a mistake."
Revenue diversification does increase a bank's return on equity
-- a key measure of profitability -- but only up to a point,
according to 2013 research by the Bank for International
Settlements. The benefits of diversification have reduced
considerably since the financial crisis, the research shows.
Another study found that returns in far-flung parts of banks'
empires have been pedestrian. In investment banking, activity
between regions has driven just 20% to 25% of sales and trading
revenue in the last 20 years, according to the report by Morgan
Stanley and consultancy Oliver Wyman. Most global banking revenue,
the report said, is generated in only five to 10 big cities, mainly
from a handful of major international clients.
Mr. Weill said he doesn't regret building the global empire that
he did, noting how profits for the combined company more than
tripled from 1998 to 2003. But he conceded that there may come a
time when what he called the "adversarial regulatory environment"
makes the model untenable.
Of the climate in Washington, he said, "it's not really getting
better."
Write to Justin Baer at justin.baer@wsj.com and Max Colchester
at max.colchester@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
May 30, 2016 13:28 ET (17:28 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2016 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Citigroup (NYSE:C)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Citigroup (NYSE:C)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024