Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

The most likely cause of a future financial crisis isn't the banks, it's the non-banks. They're enormous, they're much less regulated than banks are, and they tend to have much greater leverage.

Flashback: Never forget that when the U.S. financial system fell apart in September 2008, the bank (Lehman Brothers) was deemed small enough to fail. It was the insurance company (AIG) that was too big to fail and needed a $182 billion government bailout.

  • Today, the most systemically dangerous non-bank in America is Prudential, the insurance company. Prudential remained on Treasury's "too big to fail" list of systemically-important financial institutions even after all the other non-banks fell off it: GE Capital, AIG, MetLife.
  • Now, even Prudential is officially considered no longer systemically dangerous. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, has officially removed the insurer from the list.
  • "We are pleased with this decision, which affirms our longstanding belief that Prudential never met the standard for designation," said Prudential in a statement. "Prudential’s approach resulted in the Council’s appropriate conclusion that Prudential does not pose systemic risk."

The official explanation for why Prudential fell off the list is not very helpful, since a lot of important numbers have been redacted. But the numbers that remain are scarily large.

  • Prudential is not huge by conventional stock-market standards: Its market capitalization is just $42 billion, and its book value (assets minus liabilities) is $48 billion.
  • But those assets and liabilities are truly enormous: According to the FSOC report, Prudential has $832 billion of assets, and $778 billion of liabilities. Compare its rival Berkshire Hathaway, which has $702 billion in assets but a much more modest $350 billion in liabilities.
  • Prudential also has an eye-popping $1.4 trillion in financial assets under management.
  • The biggest number of all: Prudential has $3.7 trillion of life insurance. That's about 20% of U.S. GDP.

The weirdest part about the FSOC's decision is that they all but say explicitly that Prudential is systemically important. A couple of quotes:

"The Council therefore determined that the negative effects of Prudential’s material financial distress could be transmitted to other financial firms and markets through the exposure channel, which could cause an impairment of financial intermediation or financial market functioning sufficiently severe to impose significant damage on the broader economy.
The Council concluded that such a forced liquidation of assets could cause significant disruptions to key markets, including corporate debt and asset-backed securities markets, particularly during a period of overall stress in the financial services industry and in a weak macroeconomic environment."

Why it matters: Expect further migration of risk from banks to non-banks now that the FSOC has made it clear that it has no interest in regulating the latter.

Insurance companies are regulated primarily at the state level — which, in Prudential's case, means New Jersey. They're also inherently extremely dangerous.

  • Prudential's entire market capitalization could be wiped out with $42 billion of unexpected losses on its life insurance portfolio. That's just 1.1% of its portfolio.
  • Can such a thing happen? Yes. Look at the number of healthy men, in their prime earning years, who dropped dead during the AIDS epidemic of the 1990s. Most of those men didn't have life insurance. But if they had, a lot of insurers would have become insolvent.

If a large unexpected mortality event saddled Prudential with a lot of claims, its massive life-insurance claims would only be the beginning of its — and the country's — problems.

  • Millions of policyholders would start moving their life insurance somewhere more stable, precipitating the insurance equivalent of a run on the bank.

The bottom line: Prudential could be forced to start liquidating its assets at fire-sale prices, which could set off a chain reaction in the rest of the financial markets and even the economy as a whole.

Go deeper:

Go deeper

Updated 1 hour ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

  1. Health: Most vulnerable Americans aren't getting enough vaccine information — Fauci says Trump administration's lack of facts on COVID "very likely" cost lives.
  2. Education: Schools face an uphill battle to reopen during the pandemic.
  3. Vaccine: Florida requiring proof of residency to get vaccine — CDC extends interval between vaccine doses for exceptional cases.
  4. World: Hong Kong puts tens of thousands on lockdown as cases surge — Pfizer to supply 40 million vaccine doses to lower-income countries — Brazil begins distributing AstraZeneca vaccine.
  5. Sports: 2021 Tokyo Olympics hang in the balance.
  6. 🎧 Podcast: Carbon Health's CEO on unsticking the vaccine bottleneck.

DOJ: Capitol rioter threatened to "assassinate" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Supporters of former President Trump storm the U.S. Captiol on Jan. 6. Photo: Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

A Texas man who has been charged with storming the U.S. Capitol in the deadly Jan. 6 siege posted death threats against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the Department of Justice said.

The big picture: Garret Miller faces five charges in connection to the riot by supporters of former President Trump, including violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds and making threats. According to court documents, Miller posted violent threats online the day of the siege, including tweeting “Assassinate AOC.”

Schumer calls for IG probe into alleged plan by Trump, DOJ lawyer to oust acting AG

Jeffrey Clark speaks next to Deputy US Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen at a news conference in October. Photo: Yuri Gripas/AFP via Getty Images.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Saturday called for the Justice Department inspector general to investigate an alleged plan by former President Trump and a DOJ lawyer to remove the acting attorney general and replace him with someone more willing to investigate unfounded claims of election fraud.

Driving the news: The New York Times first reported Friday that the lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, allegedly devised "ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump’s continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. [Jeffrey] Rosen had refused the president’s entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark."