iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Top Fed Official Supports Restricting Banks' Derivatives Bets, Goes FURTHER Than Obama

Bernanke

First Posted: 06/10/10 09:35 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:45 PM ET

The top fiscal hawk and longest-serving policy maker in the Federal Reserve supports limiting banks' derivatives activities, a potential blow to Wall Street megabanks that use their taxpayer support to trade the kind of risky financial products that nearly brought down the global financial system.

In a letter of support, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas M. Hoenig endorsed a Senate provision Thursday that would force banks to strip their swaps desks out from their depository institutions, calling it "of utmost importance to our nation's long-term financial and economic stability."

The affected firms would have to move those units, which deal and trade in a type of financial derivative product, into a separately-capitalized institution within the bank holding company, collectively raising as much as a few hundred billion dollars to protect their swaps desks in case their bets go bad. Or, they could disband the activity altogether.

Of the nearly 8,000 banks in the U.S., less than 25 would be seriously affected.

Authored by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, the measure is beloved by economists and financial experts like Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz who wish to purge the riskiest of risky activities from the U.S. banking system. Since banks enjoy taxpayer-financed protection via federal deposit insurance and access to cheap funds from the Federal Reserve, they shouldn't use that taxpayer support to subsidize risky bets on derivatives, proponents of the measure say.

The explosion of risky swaps, like those sold by AIG, helped cause the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, resulting in what's now referred to as the Great Recession. The Wall Street-caused crisis led to the loss of about eight million jobs.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner all have expressed reservations about the provision.

"As you know, commercial banks are the trusted guardian of depositors' funds and the primary intermediary of the national and global payments system -- a role that is critical to our country's financial and economic stability," wrote Hoenig, a noted defender of community banks and an impassioned critic of the nation's current policy of propping up too-big-to-fail megabanks, in a letter obtained by the Huffington Post.

"I have been a long-time proponent of limiting the derivative activities of commercial banks to only those designed to mitigate the institution's balance sheet risk. Accordingly, I support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall-type laws to separate higher-risk, often more-leveraged, activities of investment banks from the commercial banking system.

"Section 716 appropriately allows banks to hedge their own portfolios with swaps or to offer them to customers in combination with traditional banking products," Hoenig wrote in a reference to the part of the Senate's financial reform bill that compels banks to split their swaps desks from the depository institution.

"However, it prohibits them from being a swaps broker or dealer, or conducting proprietary trading in derivatives. The risks related to these latter activities are generally inconsistent with the funding subsidy afforded institutions backed by a public safety net. Such activities should be placed in a separate entity that does not have access to government backstops. These entities should be required to place their own funds at risk," Hoenig said.

Hoenig is particularly well known for his hawkish views on monetary policy.

Last month before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Geithner made a veiled reference to the provision when he argued that policymakers should not "simply separate banks from risk."

"[I]n important ways, driving risk-taking into areas with less regulation -- that's exactly what caused this crisis," Geithner said on May 6. Activities such as helping businesses hedge risk with derivatives should not be moved outside of banks, "outside the reach of strong regulation," Geithner said.

Bernanke and Volcker argued against the proposal in separate May letters; Bair expressed her concerns in an April letter.

They all essentially say moving these units outside of banks would court disaster as banks are the best-regulated entities in the nation's financial system.

However, they don't note that the current financial reform legislation compels the Federal Reserve to further examine the nation's largest bank holding companies, looking at all their subsidiaries, affiliates and associated activities.

According to proponents of the legislation in the Senate and in the Obama administration, the overall bill should have the effect of making these separate entities within bank holding companies as well regulated as banks in order to avoid another catastrophic meltdown and subsequent taxpayer-financed recovery.

The financial industry vigorously opposes the measure. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is said to be looking for ways to gut the provision before the bill reaches President Barack Obama's desk.

But Hoenig, a native Iowan, reads the provision differently than his counterparts nestled in Washington and Wall Street.

According to his letter, Lincoln's measure would allow banks to continue to hedge against their own risk (such as offering a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage when one's not sure where interest rates will be over the next 30 years) and offer customers similar products in conjunction with "traditional banking products."

All it bans are the kinds of Wall Street activities that historically have not benefited from explicit (or implicit) taxpayer support.

There's speculation that Lincoln's measure will be taken out of the bill given the strong opposition from Wall Street and the Obama administration.

Having an independent voice like Hoenig on board -- one who's argued for breaking up too-big-to-fail megabanks, raising interest rates to avoid another financial bubble, and reining in federal spending to a more sustainable level -- strengthens Lincoln's hand, said one Senate aide involved in the negotiations. "It's an impressive voice to have in her camp."

READ the letter:


Thomas Hoenig on Blanche Lincoln's derivatives measure

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
The top fiscal hawk and longest-serving policy maker in the Federal Reserve supports limiting banks' derivatives activities, a potential blow to Wall Street megabanks that use their taxpayer support t...
The top fiscal hawk and longest-serving policy maker in the Federal Reserve supports limiting banks' derivatives activities, a potential blow to Wall Street megabanks that use their taxpayer support t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 184
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
08:54 PM on 06/12/2010
Sometimes you need someone besides the President to make calls like this, to keep the whiners from falling all over themselves while they point fingers and yell 'catch' phrases that only the most gullible would believe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grf67
05:27 PM on 06/11/2010
Hoeniog is correct. The WH needs to get its head out of its collective butt and start operating for the good of all Amreicans, not just businesses.
10:38 AM on 06/11/2010
This Lincoln provision sounds like just more legalized gambling for banks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
old timer 37
Retired CEO, engineer
10:33 AM on 06/11/2010
Finally someone with intelligence, inside knowlege and courage speaks up for the good of our country.

How is it that the President is listening to a Wall Street mole like Larry Summers rather than a more competent and rational Thomas Hoenig? I know this question can stimulate all sorts of simplistic answers, but I still operate with the belief that President Obama wishes to do the right thing about financial reform...a field he has no experience in... and chose to bring in Larry Summer for well intentioned motives. I also believe that, having been a CEO myself and made my share of errors selecting key personnel, Larry Summers keeps his job by ingratiating himself to the President while ruthlessly blocking real reform.
02:09 PM on 06/11/2010
Excellent post and I am in total agreement. I have worked in many large corporations and the ones heading downhill are top heavy with your description of Larry Summers...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mikelartist
Arts bring light to the dark ages.
10:10 AM on 06/11/2010
These words in the article are the most telling: "Of the nearly 8,000 banks in the U.S., less than 25 would be seriously affected."

So where is the problem? It is time for us to stop letting the tail wag the dog. These are all high risk investments vehicles that few understand and even fewer benefit from. Get rid of them. Commerce worked just fine if not better without them.

It's 25 banks out of 8000. Boo hoo for them.

Institutions that provide little benefit for our society as a whole and in fact create nothing of lasting value need to be weeded out of our democracy by putting in place rules that protect the taxpayer from their over leveraging and risky ventures. Risk free for them and insured by the taxpayer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Deus Angelus
11:15 AM on 06/11/2010
agreed
09:54 AM on 06/11/2010
CANNIBILISM AMERICAN STYLE
By gastronomic inclination,
I have a taste for high-end meat;
Would argue we pass legislation
For eating bankers from Wall Street.
Just think of it: we’re drinking, toasting
While on our barbeques were roasting
The bankers whom we’ve hunted down,
Killed, skinned, and spitted- turning brown.
With cheese and crackers, friends and neighbors-
Who’ve lost their jobs and so are broke-
Will savor bankers, drinking Coke.
And when it’s back to our poor labors,
At least we all will be well fed.
What’s left will mulch my flower bed.
See more at http://poemsonaffairsofstate.blogspot.com/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
defaultstrategy
09:44 AM on 06/11/2010
"A popular struggle will begin. And when it does, we'll at least have a fighting chance to recapture our democratic souls."
The Patriot's Guide to Strategic Default
www.mystrategichomedefault.com
People have gotten wise to the corporate control of America. Jobs outsourced abroad: check. Home prices artificially inflated due to deregulation: check. Bailout of huge, menacing banks: check. Failure of Obama plan to bring any real incentives for the banks to modify loans: check. Strategic Defaulters know they won't qualify for FHA loans for years anyway...they're saving up for things that make sense to buy. Like food, education, small business investments...not some crappy payments to a bank.
09:42 AM on 06/11/2010
The government is operating on the motto "if it moves, regulate it".
10:52 AM on 06/14/2010
That's a very disingenuous statement. If these institutions want taxpayer dollars (and they do, without us, they'd all be insolvent right now), then they need to accept regulation that limits risk-taking with those dollars. The real issue here is that the many good regulations we have in place are never enforced, so there is no reason not to take on insane levels of risk, so that casino lives on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:37 AM on 06/11/2010
There is only one statistic released today that should clarify to everyone what is going on: The number of millionaires increased by 15% in 2009. Sit back, think about all that has happened, and reflect on that one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:44 AM on 06/11/2010
Forgot to mention, that the same article said most of the new millionaires were involved in the financial and market sector. How surprising.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:30 AM on 06/11/2010
better idea. lets strip the Federal Reserve Bank and give the power to regulate money back to congress
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blood1
09:26 AM on 06/11/2010
Bottom line is that Wall Street Banking should now be categorized as gambling, not investing. I have done both, but at least I knew the difference. Now, if an individual wants to invest money for the future, they don't know how that money is being used.

I am sure I am not alone when I say that the middle class citizen was not aware that they were gambling. Think back to when interest rates on home loans were falling, how many of us received offers to re-do our mortgages? How many of us considered that re-writing these mortgages had a serious downside of extending the life of the loan. I did and my home is paid for. Somehow, the narrative from banking was and continues to be that "we know best", when that fact is far from the truth. That is why a Consumer Protection agency is being argued AGAINST...why would banks want us to know the truth and be educated consumers.

Regulation and Financial reform may have a downside, but for the banks, not the average citizen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TN60
I Hope You'll Dance
08:57 AM on 06/11/2010
Why in the world is this even being debated.? Of course, we know why...

Seen trotting up the pig path to Wall St. to beg money, in return for protection of their huge salaries and bonuses and products, were none other than McConnell, senator head pig on the right, Cornyn, head pig for the (R) Senator Re-election Commit-T, and "Orange Glow", head piggie in the House.

Why this man, Hoeing, is not in Bernanke's job or even Geithner's job, is a question that begs to be addressed by the President.

How we can still elect people who make laws, when the obvious is right before their noses, is beyond reason. How many times must it be said that deregulation doesn't work ??? How many ways must it be said that the BIGs packaged subprime mortgages ( with the help of Standard and Poor, etc) sold them here and internationally, then bet against them.

Just what does it take, to put fraudulent CEO's in jail.

Are the Democrats too stupid to realize what a gift they have been handed by the Republicans???

I'm telling the President, pure and simple to clean out his WH, get rid of bad advisers, and get back on course. I feel for him, having to put out so many fires left to him, but even he is wasting his mandate, by the clumsy crew he has around him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anym
Obama is GoldmanSachs
08:37 AM on 06/11/2010
yea we are not getting tough financial reform as long as Rahm Emanuel, Ben Bernanke, Tim Giethner, and Larry Summers are around.
photo
chiodo08
...why do republicans HATE America?...
08:47 AM on 06/11/2010
...especially when their boss is a feckless corporate shill
09:20 AM on 06/11/2010
THe feckless corporate shills are in Congress..they write the legislation!!!.Think Obama brought in Volker for a good reason...Geitner and summers need to be replaced . Have not heard Obama mention that he wants to not hold the banks accountable--cite please!
08:35 AM on 06/11/2010
Obama is on the wrong side of this issue. He wants to continue to allow unregulated derivatives trading and is fighting against breaking up big banks.

Wall Street's kitty kat is protecting his sponsors again at the expense of the people that elected him
08:35 AM on 06/11/2010
Only guy at the Fed who can do a worthwhile job.

That the conniving scoundrel Ben Bernanke does not support these measures do not come as a surprise to the readers here!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:11 AM on 06/11/2010
Agreed and all Senators that backed him should be voted out.