Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson makes remarks at the second annual Capital Markets Summit, Wednesday, March 26, 2008, in Washington. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)

Paulson Says New Financial Rules Needed

JEANNINE AVERSA | March 26, 2008 04:46 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »


WASHINGTON — If big Wall Street investment houses are allowed to run to the Federal Reserve for emergency lending, they must face stepped-up regulation, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declared Wednesday.

The demise of once-mighty Bear Stearns proves "the world has changed," underscoring a need for the government to adapt, too, he said.

The Bush administration will soon put forth an oversight blueprint in an effort to promote smoother functioning of financial markets, Paulson said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The implosion of investment house Bear Stearns and fears that others could be in jeopardy have sent a tremor rippling through trading rooms of Wall Street, the corridors of official Washington and the living rooms of many Americans. The situation has raised new questions about whether regulations need to be revamped to better keep up with the world of modern finance and to avert a repeat of the chaos now confronting the country.

Commercial banks, a national financial bedrock, are subject to regulations, including bank examinations and rules for submitting detailed financial information, to help regulators gauge their safety and soundness.

However, the modern U.S. financial system has become a complex web of financial players _ institutions and individuals and practices that are subject to widely different rules.

"This latest episode has highlighted that the world has changed as has the role of other nonbank financial institutions and the interconnectedness among all financial institutions," Paulson said. "These changes require us all to think more broadly about the regulatory and supervisory framework that is consistent with the promotion and maintenance of financial stability," he added.

In extraordinary actions aimed at preventing a meltdown of the U.S. financial system, the Federal Reserve recently backed JPMorgan Chase's takeover of Bear Stearns and agreed to provide a multibillion-dollar lifeline for the deal. In addition, the Fed, in the broadest use of its lending authority since the 1930s, said it would let squeezed Wall Street investment houses come to it directly for emergency loans. That has long been a privilege just for commercial banks.

Paulson said he supported that action but added that it raised important policy considerations about the oversight of investment houses.

The secretary said commercial banks' access to the Fed's emergency lending "discount window" has traditionally been accompanied by regulatory oversight and supervision. "Certainly any regular access to the discount window should involve the same type of regulation and supervision," Paulson said.

And he suggested that the Federal Reserve collect as much information as necessary on investment houses to "make informed lending decisions." He said the Fed is currently working to do that. Paulson suggested the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also continue to work to build a framework on this.

These steps, he said, "would enable the Federal Reserve to protect its balance sheet, and ultimately protect U.S. taxpayers," he said.

Paulson defended the government's role in coming to the aid of Bear Stearns, an action that has been criticized by some Democrats and others as akin to a federal bailout.

"Bear Stearns found itself facing bankruptcy," Paulson said. "The Federal Reserve acted promptly to resolve the Bear Stearns situation and avoid a disorderly wind-down. It is the job of regulators to come together to address times such as this, and we did so. Our focus was the stability and orderliness of our financial markets."

On the broader situation, he said it's too soon to conclude that other potentially important financial firms should have permanent access to the Fed. He also said the Federal Reserve's action so far "should be viewed as a precedent only for unusual periods of turmoil."

On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers were still skeptical about the Bear Stearns arrangement.

Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Senate Finance Committee chairman, and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the panel's top Republican, demanded details about the sale and any possible effect on taxpayers. The lawmakers asked Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to give them specifics of the transaction by week's end.

Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, summoned Paulson, Bernanke, Bear Stearns President Alan Schwartz and JP Morgan Chairman James Dimon and others to appear before his panel next Thursday to lay out the rationale behind the Bear Stearns takeover deal and its implications for taxpayers. The Fed originally agreed to guarantee $30 billion of Bear Stearns assets, including risky mortgage-backed securities. Under new terms reached earlier this week, JPMorgan said it will now take on the first $1 billion of losses, while the Fed backs the remaining $29 billion.

Those were signs that Congress, racing to deal with a housing mess that encapsulates voters' deep concerns about the economy, has placed the financial crisis at the top of the election-year agenda, with investigations and legislation likely to follow.

With home foreclosures at record highs, Paulson said the administration will explore additional ways to help distressed homeowners. But he was cool to some of the proposals put forth by Democrats, saying that "most are not yet ready for the starting gate."

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants new regulations on investment banks similar to those that apply to regular banks. That includes mandatory requirements for cash reserves to cushion losses. The Fed or another government entity should be designated as a "financial services regulator" with the power to limit risky practices, said Frank, D-Mass.

___

Associated Press writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed to this report.



Comments
39
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

If the greedy and shortsighted REPIGS didn't use their campaign contributions to influence our corrupt politicians to roll back all of these regulations, we wounldn't be in this CRISIS now.

But, the irony and disparity in all this, is that those who SCREWED the unsuspecting PUBLIC, is getting bailed out FOR screwing us - WIN/WIN. , and the SCREWEE (us) are PAYING these thugs for screwing us.

So far, foreclosures are still a major problem for the public, with NO BAILOUT from DC - unless you want to count $600 a bailout.

This is an abominable DISGRACE

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 AM on 03/28/2008

Your Bosses (the Repukes) are dead against regulatory bodies but bail the a$$holes anyway; Reagan also did it forv the S&L`s and Chrisler

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 AM on 03/28/2008

.
Typical of the shrub mob.
After the horse is gone they want to lock the barn.
.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 PM on 03/27/2008

Wow! What a concept, like a light bulb went off in his big-balled head. FDR and the New Dealers figured this out in 1933 when they were trying to clean up after the Republican Great Depression. The laws are on the books, but the free market zealots choose to ignore them whenever they"re in power. Banks and brokerage houses are constantly lobbing Congress to eliminate regulation, but have forgotten the lessons of the most devastating economic melt down in modern world history. They forget that their predecessors were jumping out of windows and selling apples on street corners. I"m glad Paulson may be getting it, hang around Bush long enough, people get more and more stupid. Notice that anyone who has brains or integrity have already left this administration to get a book deal or cash in on speaking tours, with the exception of Rumsfeld, John Snow and the horse guy Brownie who were forced out.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 03/27/2008

"Google" JFK and the federal reserve. Do you know who Jack Rubenstein was???

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:18 PM on 03/27/2008

Government regulation of "the free market"?
Careful, Hank, or they'll burn you at the stake for HERESY!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 03/27/2008

CRIMINALS!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 03/27/2008

Blinky Paulson wants absolute power over the American people to be concentrated in the hands of fifteen men. Own the bank own the country. The peoples money is now concentrated in the hands of Central private banks. The positions are appointments, who pays to get their man in power?

When money speaks, the truth keeps silent.

These people should be strung from a yard arm.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 AM on 03/27/2008

Yeah, well, if Glass-Steagal had still been in effect, it would have made no difference to Bear Stearns. So?

Maybe a few people might wonder if Lehman Bros is next? BS was leveraged, apparently, at 32:1 and Lehman is about the same. I saw a mention in passing elsewhere of some outfit that was 100:1 but who has any idea how exposed JPMC is, really? Going back to the first Fed plan, they would get $30 billion, just in case, for the buyout at $2/share for the lot and a building worth 4X the purchase price? Doesn't this smack just a bit of scapegoat and "move along, folks, nothing more to see here."

If that Sunday execution of BS was a done deal, why did it have to be changed?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 AM on 03/27/2008

Fleecing America = sound economic sense!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 AM on 03/27/2008

What happened to "smaller government"? What happened to "every time government gets involved it messes every thing up"? What happened to "keep government out of business"? What happened to "the market can regulate itself"? Could all of that been only six months ago?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 AM on 03/27/2008

"Smaller government" is neo-con code for 'ain't got noooo money' government. They are getting us there rather quickly.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 03/27/2008

It didn't "change". Bubba, doing the bidding of the corporations, and in cahoots with their stooge Republicans, along with misguided Dems, dismantled the "framework'" that kept it all separate, making regulatory supervision unnecessary, since you don't have to regulate something that is prohibited.

Triangulation may get you votes, but in the end it's not worth it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 PM on 03/26/2008

"These changes require us all to think more broadly about the regulatory and supervisory framework that is consistent with the promotion and maintenance of financial stability,"


That whirring sound is Ronald Reagan spinning at 100,000 rpm. Yes, the God of all modern Republicans who brought us the "Government is the Problem" approach to governance is being quietly set aside so the money boys can pick up the pieces of a shattered financial system. A system brought down by uncontrolled and unregulated greed which had been kept at bay for 50 years by the efforts of FDR and the New Deal. Once Republicans succeeded in unraveling the system that worked they replaced it with one that didn't.

The American People deserve George W. Bush because most of them are utterly apathetic and clueless.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 PM on 03/26/2008

Does anyone know why Bernake and Paulson would want to work for the government instead of staying at an investment bank when they could have made more money? They probably earn a tiny salary compared to what they used to and work more hours and have more stress and it doesn't seem worth it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 03/26/2008

The salary means nothing, Nicole, it's the p-o-w-e-r. When their 'tour of duty' in government is up, the go through the revolving door back to business. They sit on more Boards, earn bigger salaries, get bigger stock options, etc. Plus, a lot of their peers now owe them favors for what they did while in office. It's good to have friends.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 03/27/2008

That's the truth in a nutshell, WIpatriot.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 03/27/2008

We used to have broad oversight of Wall Street until the Republicans took over Congress. Then it all went to hell.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:41 PM on 03/26/2008

We need a Public Central Bank ... a bank that puts our country first.

The privately owned and operated Federal Reserve has proven time after time that it will put the welfare of its' member banks ahead of the public to the point that now it has risked the very solvency of the United States of America.

Why should we pay interest on on our own money creation, a right conferred to the public by the Constitution. Indeed we fought the Revolution to get rid of a private central bank, The bank of England.

Benjamin Franklin believed the shutting down of this paper money by Parliament in 1764 was the principal cause of the American Revolution, as did many other prominent Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Scrip

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 03/26/2008

But, not too much.
Wake up, folks.
The FED is not a government agency.
It is a private banking cartel.
With an exclusive franchise to use the commercial banks of this country for the control of our monetary system and our economy.
There is no Congressional oversight of the FED to determine that it operates in an appropriate manner in exercising that control.
Let's start with substantive regulation of the FED itself, and not of the commercial banks.
The level of regulation will be determined after we also take a good look at its present relationship with the Treasury of the United States, and at the manner by which the FED has the power to borrow from and to lend to the US Treasury. And, vice-versa.
In order to undertake such an investigation by the Congress, there will certainly need to be an audit of the FED itself, under order of the Congress.
And, THAT, folks, is where the SecTreas will speak up and warn the American people of the dangers of attempts by the government to OVER-regulate the financial services industry.
"Ladies and gentlemen, we can not allow the bureaucratic invasion of the nation's banking system to drive the country into economic and financial collapse at this time".
This intervention can cause a crisis of CONFIDENCE in the financial markets like we have never seen before."
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
The sovereign Central Bank of the United States.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 03/26/2008

Very true. Very true.
But, in the meantime, we have to consider the matter of the SecTreas.
Knowing there is NO way there will not be regulation, the best thing is to get ahead of the curve and drive it to the diminimus conclusion of capital requirements, periodic reporting of results and the disguise of control over OUR money.
In the meantime, the private FED bankers are just starting to get down and dirty with the investment banks that they don't even regulate - all of it with the assistance of Herr SecTreas.
The FED and JP are joint-venturing a $30B takeover of Bear Stearns, with mostly public money at risk, with a lopsided potential for gain by JP. The SecTreas is a partner in promoting that deal.
And I did say "joint-venture" there.
They would co-own a "portfilio" of BS securities, with an ROR benefit ratio of 3-1 or so, in favor of JP.
The best we could ever do is get our $30B back.
JP could gain between ten and one-hundred times that amount.
The most we could lose is not only our $30B in principal, but we would still owe the interest on the money WE borrowed.
The most JP could lose would be their $1B in the deal.
And, there is still no definition of what of the BS holdings will be in the "portfolio" of the new Treasury-Investment Bank partnership.
So, the SecTreas thinks we may need regulation.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 PM on 03/26/2008

joe, the SecTreas saying "we may need regulation" is neo-con code for 'there's more money to grab where this came from.'

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 03/27/2008

Well, now Ronald Ray Gun is being thrown under the bus! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! since 1984 we have heard nothing but the need for the free market and deregulation. Now we are all hoping for reregulation! AT last a topic that all Americans can agree on!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 PM on 03/26/2008

Isn't this rich???? Their wonderful saint reagan and his brand of economic bullshit have come full circle. Didn't see this on the evening news and it won't be there tomorrow or the next day.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 03/26/2008

I wonder how many shares he had in Ben Bernanke to come up with this, obvious to everyone else but the republicans, conclusion

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 03/26/2008

The progress made during the Progressive era and the New Deal Era has been erased by the neo-liberal market fundamentalism of the past two decades. Corporate monopolistic gigantism is now controlling the US economy to an extent comparable to the age of robber barons.

Central banking causes a recurrence of financial crises over the past 85 years. Funding debt bubbles does not deliver stable prices.

The move away from progressive taxation by higher marginal rates has hurt but unlimited entitlement programs also have to be looked at. The time is right to regulate the bankers and to adopt a new financial architecture to eliminate dollar hegemony which forces weak economies to seek export-led growth at the expense of domestic development, and to adopt global labor standards that aim at equalizing wages to make cross-border wage arbitrage unprofitable, not by pushing down wages everywhere, but by pushing wages up in the new exporting economies. International movement of capital must be accompanied by free movement of labor. Corporate profits are too high and wages are too low to keep pace with the cost of living.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 03/26/2008

Some one should of sent Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson a copy of Pigs At The Trough by Arianna Huffington before he took the job.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 03/26/2008

Just talk

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 03/26/2008

Those good old Federal Regulations didn't do anything to stop the commercial banks from raping the economy with their credit and mortgage extension practices. Keeping reserves available is not something that I see as a protection against greedy money lords. This type of thing is a false sense of security, in my opinion, and continued job protection for those on the federal payroll.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 03/26/2008

New word for Republicans:

REGULATION!!

The Un-Raygun!
Derugulate the airlines, planes fall from the sky.
Deregulate Wall Street..............

Elitot Spitzer, folks!

So shed no tears for Bear Stearns! Let 'em all fade away..........

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 03/26/2008

Blutus, when Repubs say REGULATION, they mean "authority to steal freely without your interference."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 03/27/2008

Now that the horses have escaped the corral...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 03/26/2008

We need more regulation ...

Duh. Ya think?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 03/26/2008

Or armed guards.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:52 PM on 03/27/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

Stock Quote

Enter a ticker symbol below:

Data provided by AOL