Obama’s Regulatory Brain

banking regulationsThe most important thing to know about the 1,500 page financial reform bill passed by the Senate last week — now on the way to being reconciled with the House bill — is that it’s regulatory. It does nothing to change the structure of Wall Street.

The bill omits two critical ideas for changing the structure of Wall Street’s biggest banks so they won’t cause more trouble in the future, and leaves a third idea in limbo. The White House doesn’t support any of them.

First, although the Senate bill seeks to avoid the “too big to fail” problem by pushing failing banks into an “orderly” bankruptcy-type process, this regulatory approach isn’t enough. The Senate roundly rejected an amendment that would have broken up the biggest banks by imposing caps on the deposits they could hold and their capital assets.

You do not have to be an algorithm-wielding Wall Street whiz-kid to understand that the best way to prevent a bank from becoming too big to fail is preventing it from becoming too big in the first place. The size of Wall Street’s five giants already equals a large percentage of America’s gross domestic product.

That makes them too big to fail almost by definition, because if one or two get into trouble – as they did in 2008 – their demise would shake the foundations of the financial system, even if there were an “orderly” way to liquidate them. Because traders and investors know they are too big to fail, these banks have a huge competitive advantage over smaller banks.

Another crucial provision left out of the Senate bill would be to change the structure of banking by resurrecting the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act and force banks to separate commercial banking (the classic function of connecting lenders to borrowers) from investment banking.

Here, too, the bill takes a regulatory approach instead. It includes a provision barring banks from “proprietary trading,” or making market bets with their own capital. Even if this regulation were tough enough (and the current Senate bill requires various delays and studies before it’s applied), it would not erode the giant banks’ monopoly over derivatives trading, adding to their power and inevitable “too big to fail” status.

Which brings us to the third structural idea, advanced by Senator Blanche Lincoln. She would force the banks to do their derivative trades in entities separate from their commercial banking.

This measure is still in the bill, but is on life-support after Paul Volcker, Tim Geithner, and Fed chair Ben Bernanke came out against it. Republicans hate it. The biggest banks detest it. Virtually every major Wall Street and business lobbyist has its guns trained on it. Almost no one in Washington believes it will survive the upcoming conference committee.

But it’s critical. For years the big banks have relied on taxpayer-funded deposit insurance to backstop their lucrative derivative businesses. Obviously they want the subsidy to continue. Bernanke argues that “depository institutions use derivatives to help mitigate the risks of their normal banking activities.” True, but irrelevant. Lincoln’s measure would allow banks to continue to use derivatives. They just could not rely on their government-insured deposits for the capital.

Requiring banks to do derivative trading in separate entities would force them to raise extra capital. But if such trading is so useful, banks should foot the bill, not taxpayers. Bernanke and others say the measure would give foreign banks a competitive advantage. Even if he is right, since when is it up to taxpayers to guarantee profitability at America’s largest banks relative to foreign ones?

The trading of derivatives is not so crucial to the US economy that taxpayers should subsidize the practice. If the past two years have taught us anything, the lesson is just the opposite. Derivatives can generate huge risks unless carefully regulated.

robert_reich.jpgWall Street’s lobbyists have fought tooth and nail against these three ideas because all would change the structure of America’s biggest banks. The lobbyists won on the first two, and the Street has signaled its willingness to accept the Dodd bill, without Lincoln’s measure.

The interesting question is why the president, who says he wants to get “tough” on banks, has also turned his back on changing the structure of America’s financial system.

by Robert Reich

This article first appeared on Robert Reich’s Blog. Republished with permission


  1. says

    Reich’s conclusion: “The interesting question is why the president, who says he wants to get “tough” on banks, has also turned his back on changing the structure of America’s financial system.”

    Contrary both to this conclusion and to commenter Winslow, there’s no longer much interest in the question nor any big mystery about Obama. That’s because by now Obama has established a track record – much like Bush’s – of deliberately selling out whatever good stuff his rhetoric seems to be endorsing. It little matters what alleged underlying psychological ‘mystery’ might account for this. What does matter is that the performance is quite consistent – as if habitual and instinctive – across ALL major policy arenas.

    Name your favorite arena: comprehensive health care, effective economic stimulus and job creation, effective financial regulation, actually preventing Iran and other terror-sponsoring regimes from developing nukes, actually resisting rather than limply tolerating dictatorships and repression, promotion of clean green energy rather than more climate change and more oil from the environmentally worst sources,…

    Obama’s rhetorical sentiments are progressivist or rationalist – quite unlike Bush or Palin. However, just like those guys, he doesn’t really himself believe in the importance of any of these sentiments (even if they happen to be apropos and true).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *