Megabanks Need Tighter Restrictions!
Thursday, May 2nd, 2013
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
BIG BANKS WANT TO STAY TOO BIG TO FAIL!
In
the movie Wall Street, Michael
Douglas’s character Gordon Gecko summed up the attitude of major U.S. banks
quite well: “Greed is good.” And this certainly appears to be true, at
least for the banks, because after all, the federal government has made it
clear that even after the 2008 financial debacle, where hundreds of billions’
of dollars were poured into the likes of these big guys, no effective new rules
have been put into place and no major banker has been held accountable.
The
old axiom is true. The more the big
banks take irresponsible risks and commit out- right fraud, the more things
stay the same, as the regulatory system looks the other way. That is until the banks
face major losses and cry for help. Then the federal dollars begin to flow and
bailout checks pour out of the federal treasury with the force of a flooding
river.
Remember
just five years ago? The big banks made
off like bandits. J.P. Morgan Chase
received $25 billion. Bank of America
cashed in for $15 billion. Citigroup was
the recipient of $25 billion, while both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley received
$10 billion, each. With all this money
being handed over by taxpayers, surely the rules of financial solvency and bank
accountability would be overhauled. Too
many risky investments and not enough money kept in reserve was the cry.
And
there were some efforts by congress and legislators to build in more
“perceived” safeguards. Dodd-Frank
legislation was enacted into law in 2010, but many members of Congress who
strongly supported the reforms in this legislation feel it did not do enough.
“The bottom line is that Dodd – Frank didn’t end too big to fail,” says
Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services. According to Hensarling, the “Dodd-Frank
institutionalized and codified too big to fail.”
Then
there were internationally agreed upon rules called Basel III, but such rules
assume that there are regulators across the globe that can handle the job of
monitoring big banks. There have been many instances were regulators have
dropped the ball, or have been intimidated by the very banks they are supposed
to regulate. And the rules themselves have proven to be complicated and open to
varying interpretations.
Into
to fray comes two Senators who seem to be making a good faith effort to both
simplify the rules and bypass the incompetency of the regulators. And they seem to be on the right track. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a moderate
democrat, and Louisiana Senator David Vitter, a conservative republican, have proposed
some systematic reforms with the goal of allowing us to stop worrying about big
banks. Their legislation is purported to
raise the cushion against bad risk by requiring more reserves, and simplifying
the requirements to be followed.
Sherrod
Brown (no relation) is a details guy. I had the chance to work with him on a
number of election reform proposals when we were both Secretaries of State for
our respective states back in the 1980s.
David Vitter worked with me on a number of insurance reform proposals
when he was in the Louisiana legislature in the 1990s, and I was the state’s
insurance commissioner. They come from
different philosophical slants, but both agree that big banks have taken
advantage of the regulatory system and the taxpayers.
Brown
summed up their joint approach in a recent statement where he pointed out “that
the more we learn about these bailouts, gifts and advantages that Wall Street
gets, the clearer it becomes that one set of rules applies to the largest
megabanks and another set of rules to the smaller financial institutions and
the rest of the country.” Louisiana
banker Presto Kennedy agrees. “The
solution demands a political will to break up these greedy and corrupt giants that
threaten to engulf our financial system.”
The
Brown-Vitter proposal does not go as far as requiring break-ups of giant
banks. But the legislation does make an
attempt to level the playing field. One
way is to limit the discretion of regulators who often have been intimidated by
the political influence of the Wall Street giants. The New York Times commented that “in a major
way, the Brown – Vitter bill effectively sidesteps the need for reliable
regulators. It simply says that all banks would have to set up a buffer for
potential losses – called capital in the industry – that is equivalent to 15%
of their total assets.”
The
Brown-Vitter proposal is not a “solve all” solution. But it will go a long way to inhibiting
future major financial crises. It
recognizes that the five biggest banks in the U.S. control assets that add up
to some 60% of America’s gross national product. This doesn’t reflect the free market or real
competition. In fact, there is no present
free market in the financial system.
When you allow an inefficient government-subsidy scheme like the one we
have in place now to protect megabanks that are carrying on large, complex
activities, even with Dodd-Frank, the regulatory system will continue to allow
unmanageable financial giants that will be deemed “too big to fail.”
We’ve
had enough of Wall Street welfare. Right
now, risky financial behavior is the norm on Wall Street. Heads they win, tails, the taxpayer
looses. The Brown-Vitter proposal may
have some slight unintended consequences.
But it’s a good start, and it will create a much better balanced marketplace
with a much greater likely hood of averting any financial crisis in the future.
*********
“I believe that
banking institutions are more dangerous to her liberties than standing
armies.” Thomas
Jefferson
Peace and Justice
Jim Brown
Jim
Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout
the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns
and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s
nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central
time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home