iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Wall Street Reform Gets A Push From The Left

JIM KUHNHENN   05/ 3/10 04:11 AM ET   AP

Financial Regulation
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., left, and Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., arrive for a hearing involving Credit Rating Agencies before the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, April 23, 2010.(AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)

WASHINGTON — Liberal Senate Democrats who until now were on the sidelines are complaining that a pending financial overhaul bill backed by President Barack Obama does not go far enough to rein in Wall Street's giants.

Some want the legislation changed to break up the nation's six biggest banks. Others would be content to restrict banks' ability to engage in speculative trading or to return to Depression-era rules that walled off Main Street commercial banks and their federally insured depositors from the lucrative investment houses of Wall Street.

To the chagrin of bankers and the White House, they could win some votes as the Senate this week begins considering amendments to a bill that Obama and lawmakers promise would prevent a repeat of the financial collapse two years ago, which set off the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The six breakup targets are Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Together, they have assets that total more than 60 percent of the nation's gross domestic product.

"They're just too big," Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., said in an interview. "They're too big to manage, they're too big to regulate."

The Obama administration, which has demanded tough new banking controls, worries that breaking up banks would hurt American competitiveness. The banking lobby, busy fighting some provisions already in the bill, fears a Senate majority will find populist appeal in cutting them down to size.

Kaufman and such Democratic senators as Carl Levin of Michigan, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Maria Cantwell of Washington, along with Independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont, plan to propose several changes.

Among the most outspoken on the need for a tougher bill is Kaufman, a lanky, professorial, 71-year-old former Senate aide appointed to the Delaware Senate seat of his former boss, Vice President Joe Biden.

Several times over the past three months Kaufman has gone to the Senate floor to make his case that the Senate's – and by extension, the administration's – regulatory remedy falls far short.

While Democratic Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., sought to compromise with Republicans, Kaufman was criticizing the Democrats' regulatory scheme.

"Little in these reforms is really new, and nothing in these reforms will change the size of these mega-banks," he said in a floor speech a month ago.

Days later, ABC's "This Week" played a clip of Kaufman for guest Lawrence Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser. Soon after, Summers asked to meet with Kaufman. Summers' private message to Kaufman was not unlike what Summers would say publicly on PBS' "NewsHour":

"Most observers who study this believe that to try to break banks up into a lot of little pieces would hurt our ability to serve large companies and hurt the competitiveness of the United States. They believe that it would actually make us less stable, because the individual banks would be less diversified and, therefore, at greater risk of failing, because they wouldn't have profits in one area to turn to when a different area got in trouble."

Kaufman and his colleagues were undeterred by the White House's view. Last week, he and Brown filed an amendment to cut the size of a bank's permissible liabilities to no more than 2 percent of the gross domestic product and limit a bank's deposits to 10 percent of the nation's total deposits. The giant banks would have three or four years to wind themselves down.

"If we don't want more bailouts, we need to do something about the unprecedented concentration of wealth among a few large banks," Brown said.

Merkley and Levin propose banning commercial, or depository, banks from speculative trading with their own accounts. The amendment is tougher than Dodd's bill, which instructs an oversight council of regulators to study such a ban and recommend modifications and ways to implement it.

Merkley, visited by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week, says his proposal follows the spirit of Obama's recommendations. He added, though, "This may be a little clearer and crisper than the administration might have done."

Cantwell is considering offering an amendment based on legislation she and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona proposed in December. It would reinstate the 1930s Glass-Steagall Act that separated federally insured commercial banking from investment banking activities.

All those ideas could win support from some Republicans, many of whom have repeatedly maintained that no financial institution should be too big to fail. One of the intellectual forces behind the ideas is Simon Johnson, an economics professor at MIT. Variations on these and stronger measures also have been endorsed by Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Dodd and Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee argue that size alone did not create banks too big to fail. They agree with the administration that the industry needs large institutions to compete in a global market. They note that of the top 10 banks in the world with assets of more than $2 trillion, only two are U.S. bank holding companies – Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase – and they don't rank in the top five.

Johnson counters that the Brown-Kaufman proposal would result in U.S. banks of $100 billion to $300 billion in total size. "Those banks would run rings around big, bloated, stupid banks in the rest of the world," he said.

For bank lobbyists, the amendments complicate an already difficult fight. They already take issue with some consumer protection provisions in the bill and a section that would force banks to spin off their lucrative derivatives business.

"Banning those companies from trading, hedge fund and private equity activity will only drive such activities into unregulated aspects of the financial system," said Rob Nichols, president and chief operating officer for the Financial Services Forum, which represents the nation's largest banks.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Liberal Senate Democrats who until now were on the sidelines are complaining that a pending financial overhaul bill backed by President Barack Obama does not go far enough to rein i...
WASHINGTON — Liberal Senate Democrats who until now were on the sidelines are complaining that a pending financial overhaul bill backed by President Barack Obama does not go far enough to rein i...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 422
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
07:58 AM on 05/10/2010
Coffee Party - Wall St. Emergency: Stand Up for Main St.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7oQvI5zHLI
08:07 AM on 05/07/2010
These so called representatives are arrogant,smug pieces of s----. They could care less about their grandchildren and children, its all about them,right here, right now, so what about tomorrow.
09:48 PM on 05/04/2010
okay progressives, not too fast
remember the old Democratic strategy of making a lot of populist noise for the base
to give the Dems cover for the election
and then voting what the Banksters want
BE SKEPTICAL, BUT if REAL reform happens,
SEND MONEY TO THE SENATORS WHO MAKE IT HAPPEN
with a thank you note
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
mrcontinental
Expat Extraordinaire.
03:59 PM on 05/04/2010
This is article is excellent and clearly shows why at the end of it all this "reform" will be nothing but smoke and mirrors... enjoy.

http://www.nypress.com/article-21163-fraudonomics.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
WIpatriot
I've seen enough to make me Progressive
09:05 PM on 05/04/2010
Good article, MrC. Reform will be toothless.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
mrcontinental
Expat Extraordinaire.
11:05 AM on 05/05/2010
Ideed it will be toothless because if it succeeds grandma, grandpa, Aunt Agatha and Uncle Arthur will all be destitute as their 401k and pensions go bye bye for good as the entire ponzi scheme goes up in smoke. It's a case where removing the tumor will most definitely kill the patient immediately and leaving it gives them a painful continued existence while cutting decades off their life. At the present we have a few more years before complete collapse and current estimates are that only 4% of the middle class have made any preparations at all. We will completely destroy the euro first to buy us more time but very soon the riots will be here as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim281
Just slightly to the left of John Lennon
10:49 AM on 05/04/2010
More like "Too big to NOT own enough senators to protect their greedy interests."
05:01 AM on 05/04/2010
we need the toughest bank measures out there!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Rod DK
Tr0lls got the cutest little fangs
11:48 PM on 05/03/2010
There is a very easy way to return from a casino with a small fortune: go there with a large one. ~Jack Yelton
photo
Bushwhacked
Stay active, informed and VOTE in 2014!
08:56 PM on 05/03/2010
"Liberal Senate Democrats are complaining that a pending financial overhaul bill backed by President Obama does not go far enough ..." No, it doesn't. It's irritating senators even need to offer amendments that should be there in the first place. "They're too big to manage, they're too big to regulate."- Sen. Ted Kaufman. Thank these senators for stepping up and wish them success. "Cantwell is considering offering an amendment based on legislation she and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona proposed in December. It would reinstate the 1930s Glass-Steagall Act that separated federally insured commercial banking from investment banking activities." Um, duh! Please do that little thing, would ya? Jeez. The modest proposal of the agriculture committee is that the U.S. government (FDIC) stop underwriting derivative risk. "If banks wish to write derivatives, they should do so through a separate affiliate within the holding company... the taxpayer shouldn't have to pick up the tab... The Fed and the Treasury seem to object to the agriculture committee's proposals. These objections show once again the extent to which the Fed and the Treasury have been captured by the institutions that they are supposed to regulate, and reemphasize the need for deeper governance reforms of the Fed than those on the table." Yes. THEY DO.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/03/stiglitz.wall.street.reform/index.html?hpt=T3

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468
07:53 PM on 05/03/2010
Senators Kaufman and Brown,

Thank you for focusing on the logical point that seems to be lost on so many. The “Mega Banks” (were and continue to be) “Too Big to Fail” and have actually grown even larger during this ongoing crisis. Logically they now present an even greater systemic risk. Government intervention and aid was necessary in September of 2008…and continues because the sheer size and level of interconnectivity of these few “Wall Street” institutions grants them extortive power.

Congressional failure to break up the “Wall Street Mega Banks” simply cannot be logically or politically justified…Allowing them to exist in their present size and function continues to represent a terrible and unnecessary risk to our economic and political system.

Members of Congress from both parties please restore the firewall of Glass Steagall and follow Senators Kaufman and Brown’s responsible plan to effectively end “Too Big to Fail.”

*Senator Shelby "especially" please work to restore Glass Steagall as you were one of the few from either party who responsibly warned of the dangers of this course of action and did not vote to repeal it:

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Senate Vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act House Vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-570

Key Exclusions in the Dodd Bill:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/DoddExemptions.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
capitaldysfunction
White male never voted Republican
03:06 PM on 05/04/2010
I agree. The ultimate decision should be based not on the effect on the banks but the effect on the American middle class.

Having said that, I seriously doubt the American political system has the will to end TBTF. That is something I would bet the farm on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:59 PM on 05/03/2010
The bankers are kil.ling us. The next vote is the most important in history. We have to break up the bankers and audit the fed. No too big to fail. Vote the bank supporters out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7pGpZW6fWk&playnext_from=TL&videos=QQpzsTzVpEU&feature=sub
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tsull82751
12:47 PM on 05/07/2010
Absolutely. I intend to do all I can to get them out. I have the list. There are some names on the list that disappointed me tremendously because I once held them in very high regard, but NO longer. They must go. This damn greed over everything has to end NOW.
06:53 PM on 05/03/2010
Part of this discussion revolves around two sides looking the 2 parties "responsible" for this crisis. Many people feel that the banks who traded in derivatives are responsible. Many others feel that irresponsible individuals using excess debt are responsible. If the issue is viewed from the perspective of the individuals who took the loans, their decisions were, in fact, rational. Example: Countrywide tells you that you can purchase a $300,000 house with a 1.5% teaser rate for 2 years...if you have not the greatest credit, you have the following facts, with housing prices rising at ~12% annually, if things go as expected, you will have a 2 year profit of $72,000 (12%, not compounded) having paid only $9,000 total for the 2 years (less than rent). If you are wrong, and housing prices fall, you can just mail the keys to the bank. If you think the odds of a 12% rise in housing prices is reasonable YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS DEAL. If you are right, you profit greatly, if you are wrong, you do not lose much, if anything at all. The individuals trading the derivatives believed that real estate was "all local" and that there was a low degree default probability. I think everyone should look at Pierre Collin-Dufresne's papers on the correlation aspect of CDOs squared for an accurate explanation of what happened on the trading/inv. banking side of the crisis.

http://jfec.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/12
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marty blair
06:17 PM on 05/03/2010
To understand why people dislike lawyers and bankers we need go no further than Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

A tax lawyer turned banker, he heads a banking company that cooked up mortgage-backed investment “opportunities” with Hedge Fund manager John Paulson. Why? So Paulson could bet the investments would lose money, thus making a lot of money, and so Goldman could sell the investments, thus making a lot of money. Paulson personally helped select the money-losing investments for Goldman to sell so that the scheme would work.

Paulson made $1 billion dollars with his bet. The investors that Goldman sold the “opportunities” to lost $1billon dollars. Goldman as the “bookie” made $15 million dollars as its fee, called the “vig” in the casino and loan-sharking businesses.

If this were you or me, we’d go to jail. But nobody probably will because Congress, led by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, and former President Bill Clinton encouraged these players to create their own casino by passing bank deregulation laws.

Funniest thing about this article---McCain is co-sponsoring bill on reform! McCain's chief economic adviser in 2008 campaign---Phil Gramm, who probably would have been Treasury Secretary if McCain had been elected.

Dick the butcher had it right. “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers!” Tell us about a lawyer/politician/banker the world would just be a better place without. Go to http://deadlawyer.blogspot.com/
06:49 PM on 05/03/2010
Well said!!! You know what they call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

----a good start----
07:09 PM on 05/03/2010
Goldman did lose $90mm on the Abacus deal...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YMBM
06:13 PM on 05/03/2010
There is no need to break up the six large banks; they need the economy of scale to compete in the Global Market. If you break them up, then they will not be able to leverage their business servers across the various product lines. It they are broken up, you will see more foreign capital leave US market, to invest in other country. We need to focus on address the current problems as well as those that are for seeable. Note that we can not account for all scenarios but we do not want to restrict the market so that it can not grow and introduce new financial products to the market.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tribilin219
A Proud progressive, and for the Green party,one o
05:05 PM on 05/03/2010
I don't know about the rest of you but, Anyone who work's in Washington who vote's to keep thing's the way they are, Is not on our side, and needs to go in 2012, let them be DINO'S or RINO'S, We need to take back our Gov. from special interest or things or only going to get worst!! Look at the watered down Health care bill we got, are they going to do the same with Financial bill? and the Energy bill? Cause I don't know about you ? But that's not Change we can believe in? Traitor's and Sell outs is what we have working for us in Washington!! and I've had a bellyful of them all!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tsull82751
12:55 PM on 05/07/2010
you are so right. These no votes will spell major
loss of support to these senators.
photo
medici
My micro-brewery is empty.
03:59 PM on 05/03/2010
At the very least, re-enact Glass-Steagall.