iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Bloc Of House Dems Battling Back Against Wall Street

First Posted: 06/24/10 10:45 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:50 PM ET

Gulf Oil Spill

Democrats in favor of tough Wall Street reform are entering a House debate that has been dominated the past week by the New Democrat Coalition and members representing New York state. A trio of lawmakers -- Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) -- began circulating a letter to conferees on Wednesday pushing back on the effort to weaken Blanche Lincoln's derivatives reform proposal.

By the end of the day, they'd gathered 50 signatures, giving House leadership a boost in its effort to persuade the New Democrats -- typically Wall Street friendly members from the suburbs -- to get in line behind strong reform.

The House released its derivatives proposal to the Senate on Wednesday evening; advocates of reform are worried that the last-minute Wall Street push will be enough to derail the legislation. The measure will be debated on Thursday. "We are reviewing [the House language] now, but are very upset that 'balance sheet risk' was added back in, even though they provide exceptions to who may claim it as a legitimate hedge," said Jim Collura, a New England fuel dealer who has been leading a coalition of derivatives end-users demanding reform. "Balance sheet risk" would appear to allow companies to trade unregulated derivatives if the purpose is to reduce risk on the company's balance sheet -- a purpose very easy to claim.

Read the letter:

June 23, 2010


Dear Conferees:

We write to urge you to preserve the strong Senate language regulating the derivatives markets in the final financial reform legislation. Effective regulation of the $600 trillion derivatives market is fundamental to our financial security because the significant unregulated over-the-counter market was a fundamental cause of the financial crisis, and without change will remain an ever present danger. Effective regulation also is necessary because unchecked speculation in these markets causes price fluctuations in vital commodities including food and oil that hurt businesses and consumers.

Warren Buffett has called unregulated derivatives 'financial weapons of mass destruction' and Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz asserted, "If [Congress] fails to pass strict oversight of dangerous over-the-counter derivatives and swaps the U.S. economy will continue to be vulnerable to significant financial risk."

In particular, we strongly urge you to preserve the following aspects of the Senate bill:

Broad clearing and exchange trading requirements to make the market safe

The Senate bill applies crucial elements of derivatives reform including requiring transparency and the posting of margin to make the system safer for approximately 90 percent of all trades. The House language would exempt 40 to 50 percent of transactions. Despite Wall Street claims to the contrary, the Senate language excludes businesses using derivatives trades to hedge commercial risk from these requirements, although it permits them to clear and exchange trade.

Where it differs from the House bill is in clearly limiting exceptions to commercial entities hedging commercial risk. The House language would allow financial firms to take advantage of the exceptions it provides, creating an enormous loophole, while the Senate language expressly prevents financial firms from doing so.

Reporting requirements that allow regulators and participants to understand the market

The Senate bill requires real time reporting to regulators and the public on transactions in the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market, allowing businesses that use swaps to shop around for the best prices, and ensure that regulators can monitor the markets to prevent systemic risk. Conversely, the House language would allow the public to see only "aggregate" data from swaps transactions. This means that businesses would not be able to access information to allow them to shop for best prices.

Capital and Margin Requirements

The Senate bill ensures that whenever a financial institution trades swaps there are clear capital and margin requirements to increase stability in our financial markets. We are concerned that the House bill's ambiguous language creates a loophole that could allow any financial institution that is not 'systemically risky' to trade swaps without money to back up its trades.

Fiduciary Duty

Revised Senate language collaboratively drafted between the Senate Agriculture and HELP Committees imposes a heightened standard of care on swaps dealers when they give advice or recommend swaps transactions to government entities, pension funds, endowments, and retirement plans. This is essential to combating the kind of abuses that have left government entities and non-profits across the country struggling under staggering derivatives-related debts, and to giving essential protections to less sophisticated institutional investors, including pension funds and endowments, and the taxpayers and workers on whose behalf they invest.

Separation of derivatives market making from commercial banking (Section 716)

The Senate bill includes important provisions that remove the ongoing Federal subsidy to the derivatives businesses of the five large banks that dominate this market. This language will help ensure that taxpayers are not supporting this risky activity with deposit insurance or other benefits. It will increase transparency and safety by making sure that derivatives market making activities are separately capitalized. As a result, it will also redirect bank capital towards lending and investment in Main Street, rather than empty speculation.

It is crucial to ensure that the legislation is effective by closing the enforcement gap left when the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committee versions of the bill were combined, and ensure that rules cannot be evaded by clearinghouses simply refusing to clear trades that the regulators have ordered to clear. Rules to prevent domination of the clearinghouses by the biggest traders, like the language of the Lynch amendment in the House, in addition to the rulemaking authority on conflicts of interests provided to the regulators in the Senate bill are also important.

Thank you for your attention to these import issues.

Sincerely,

ROSA DeLAURO
BART STUPAK
JACKIE SPEIER

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Democrats in favor of tough Wall Street reform are entering a House debate that has been dominated the past week by the New Democrat Coalition and members representing New York state. A trio of lawmak...
Democrats in favor of tough Wall Street reform are entering a House debate that has been dominated the past week by the New Democrat Coalition and members representing New York state. A trio of lawmak...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 169
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:49 AM on 06/25/2010
Anyone have handy a list of the New Dems who are preparing to cut our throats?? I'd like to know who all of them are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
structurequity
structurequity not oppression
07:42 PM on 06/24/2010
May the Dogs eat blue
07:39 PM on 06/24/2010
One thing the past few years have really shown is who really runs the country. Oil spill? BP runs the show. Banks failing? bailout granted overnight with no debate and no listening to constituents, and on and on and on. Politicians, including the president, are just for show (and for creating laws that will pad their pockets.) It has been this way for decades, but it is really showing its ugly head now. Politicians want just two things from the middle class - our vote and then our money to give to their friends.
06:30 PM on 06/24/2010
It will be interesting to see if the President signs a bill that doesn't include strong derivatives regulation language. He originally said he would not. As the two bills stand now they are more or less pure show. Dodd really is a corporate shill.
06:29 PM on 06/24/2010
way to go guys fight the good fight. these wall street bankers brought us all to the brink of ruin.
they are back into huge bonuses, the rest of america will suffer for years to come.

u got to stop them !!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:50 PM on 06/24/2010
If that new democrat coalition sides with republicans for Wall Street, you can get all the signatures you want. It won't matter. They can block final passage in the house and crush the bill.

I hope they can still kill this whole bill. The democrats will never get another chance at this.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Billyguitar
Disgusted by politics since John Anderson lost. In
03:28 PM on 06/24/2010
Warren Buffett has called unregulated derivatives 'financial weapons of mass destruction' and Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz asserted, "If [Congress] fails to pass strict oversight of dangerous over-the-counter derivatives and swaps the U.S. economy will continue to be vulnerable to significant financial risk."
------------

That's all I need to know. Don't give in to Wall Street. They'll still make plenty of money without these particular types of derivatives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:36 PM on 06/24/2010
all respect and kudos to the precious few who actually work for the people
02:19 PM on 06/24/2010
These headlines make me laugh-- no one is fighting back against Wall St-- it's all just talk and no meaningful reform. Another pathetic joke.
01:35 PM on 06/24/2010
He sold out the babbies of the future. I know you folks are pro choise but this man had his chance. He will go down in history as the one who decieded their fate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:34 PM on 06/24/2010
do you believe you have the right to make other people live by your personal religious beliefs? Or do you think I have the right to make you abide by mine? Pretty much every person who is 'pro-life' does so based on personal religious beliefs. And that is fine as far as their own conduct, but they don't have the right to dictate to others. If abortion is made illegal, it will force the practice back into back alleys and other dangerous venues. Nobody makes anybody get an abortion. If you don't believe in them, don't get one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:28 PM on 06/24/2010
He sold out the babbies? You know those wiggly red lines under the words as you type? They mean something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinogod
word farmer
01:30 PM on 06/24/2010
Wow, and stupak is leading the charge against wall streets pushback...
01:25 PM on 06/24/2010
Well it looks like the banks will have to spend a little more of that money Obama gave them. There appears to be a few more in the Senate that must be persuaded to fall in line with the banks. Or are these Senators simply trying to raise the price?
photo
squat6971
59 *was* divine -- 60? 61? not so much
01:13 PM on 06/24/2010
Hope remains.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:09 PM on 06/24/2010
I found it reprehensible that Rachel Maddow encouraged Melanie Sloan of CREW to file an ethics complaint against Stupak over the abortion issue. The complaint alleged that his residence in DC was being subsidized by The Family. I thought it unfair to compare his renting of a room with a shared bath with the cost of a one bedroom apartment, but that's just me.

I may not agree with his religious preference but he seems to be straight arrow who votes his conscience. Too bad he's retiring.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Phreaked
In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night
01:37 PM on 06/24/2010
The residence he was living in was owned by the family who has the expressed position of using politicians to further their own agenda in the US and abroad. And any subsidizing in return for political favors is bribery
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:31 PM on 06/24/2010
Actually the residence - termed a MANSION by Maddow & Sloan - was owned by an *individual* in the Family. Since his primary residence is in another state one would assume that bought the MANSION as an investment/second home, and rented rooms to defer expense.

The ethics issue involves Fair Value. Like did Senator Dodd get a sweetheart deal or did he make a shrewd choice on financing?

The point I'm making is that the issue did not arise until Stupak took a stand on abortion in the health bill. I'd also point out that despite the allegation that the bill did not allow federal funds to be used to subsidize abortion, when Obama issued an executive order imposing the Hyde amendment NOW, NARAL, etc., issued condemnations. So what changed if there was no subsidy?

OTOH, the basis of the complaint focused on Stupak paying $900 a month in 2001 for a ROOM to sleep in, sharing bath etc., and the cost of a one bedroom apartment - no sharing - renting for $1500. Apples and oranges.

Further I have a friend with rental property who rents to older adults exclusively - at below market value - because they don't damage his property and pay on time. If you were renting out a 2nd home you might do the same. That's not bribery, it's smart business.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demshuff
Clinton/Warren 2016
03:29 PM on 06/24/2010
wait a minute ---- bribery, what's that!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:05 PM on 06/24/2010
Paying $600 a month for rent in a Washington DC mansion (worth app. 1.8 million) with

12 bedrooms,
9 bathrooms,
5 living rooms,
4 dining rooms,
three offices and
a kitchen and servants

is subsidized living. Unless you know a lot of people who have 9 bathrooms in their mansions and rent their rooms for $600 a month.

Why would 12 men need 4 dining rooms or 5 living rooms if their budgets were so tight? And
how is a mansion maintained on such a tiny budget? Until 2009 the house was for tax purposes a church, which considering all of the adulterers living there is kind of ironic, not to mention depriving the government of tax revenue, i.e. a subsidy. Now it is taxed at 66% of its value because it does also have a small chapel on the premises. Otherwise, it is maintained by millions in private donations (wink).

I don't think it is on par with any one bedroom apartment I've ever had either. It's a plantation. I find it reprehensible that anyone can live in a mansion and ask me to believe his rent represents full payment for what is received.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:25 AM on 06/25/2010
But of course none of this came up until he opposed provisions that would allow federal funds for abortions. For how many years was it okay?

It's one thing to investigate influence and favors, but another to target someone for a principled stand on an issue. Sure it's done, but I have no respect for those who do so.

That was the original point.
12:29 PM on 06/24/2010
Nothing a few well placed bribes from Wall Street can't undo, I'm afraid