iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Simon Johnson

Simon Johnson

Posted: April 10, 2010 08:31 AM

Fix The Dodd Bill -- Use The Kanjorski Amendment

What's Your Reaction:

At the heart of the currently proposed legislation on financial reform (e.g., the Dodd bill and what we are expecting on derivatives from the Senate Agriculture committee), there is a simple premise: Key decisions about exact rules going forward must be made by regulators, not Congress. This is obviously the approach being pushed for capital requirements, but it is also the White House's strong preference for any implementation of the Volcker Rule - first it must be studied by the systemic risk council (or similar body) and only then (potentially) applied.

Treasury insists that Congress is not capable of writing the detailed rules necessary for a complex financial system - only the regulators can do this. This is either a mistake of breathtaking proportions, or an indication that the ideology of unfettered finance continues to reign supreme.

The regulators who got us into our current mess include Ben Bernanke (a Republican from the Greenspan tradition of financial regulation), John Dugan (also a Republican, who makes Bernanke look progressive), and of course Alan Greenspan himself.

If legislation can only empower regulators then, given regulators are only as strong a newly elected president wants them to be, the approach in the Dodd bill simply will not work.

There is still a feasible alternative, based on a different approach - that proposed by Representative Paul Kanjorski (chairman of the Capital Market Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee) and adopted as an amendment in the House bill.

This amendment will allow federal regulators to preemptively break up large financial institutions that - for any reason - pose a threat to financial or economic stability in the United States. (Yes, there is a weak version of this idea currently in the Dodd draft, but it is very weak - allowing regulators to act "only as a last resort"; see p.3 of the official bill summary.)

Representative Kanjorski has exactly the right idea, but we need to go a step further - because we cannot at this point reasonably expect regulators to implement properly. Remember, in the Catch-22 type nature of these issues, the regulators can easily say: Implicit in Congress's decision not to mandate a break-up, will infer a congressional intent that no institutions currently meet the criteria.

The reality is this. As documented in 13 Bankers (see Chapter 7), six banks currently fit the Kanjorski criteria - they are, by any definition, "too big to fail." Congress should mandate their break-up rather than leaving this to the judgment of regulators.

We can discuss the best language and exact terms but the broader point is that we need change by statute, not "after further study."

Even if you trust and believe in the new-found regulatory zeal of our current regulators, Senator Dodd and all other Democrats should be concerned that the next president may be a free market Republican who will appoint regulators captured by Wall Street.

The Dodd legacy should be to break the doom loop for future generations. It would be unwise to let that legacy depend on the judgment of regulators to be named later.

--

13 Bankers: http://13bankers.com (on sale now)
The Baseline Scenario: http://baselinescenario.com (economics blog)

 
 
 
At the heart of the currently proposed legislation on financial reform (e.g., the Dodd bill and what we are expecting on derivatives from the Senate Agriculture committee), there is a simple premise: ...
At the heart of the currently proposed legislation on financial reform (e.g., the Dodd bill and what we are expecting on derivatives from the Senate Agriculture committee), there is a simple premise: ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 110
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
05:24 PM on 04/12/2010
The Office of Thrift Supervision chartered (Licensed) the Am Trust Bank owned by the Goldberg family in Cleveland Ohio.
The Office of Thrift Supervision gets its authority to regulate, supervise and enforce those violations under the US Code and the Federal Code of Regulations Title 12-Banks.
The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) was negligent and malfeasant in their enforecment responsibilities.
One outstanding example would be that of Hamilton vs Ohio Savings Bank (name change to AmTrust Bank) in a class action lawsuit filed in 1985 for manipulation of the calculation of mortgage interest. This was a Truth in Lending violation. This involved some 23,000 of the bank's borrowers.
The bank settled this Lawsuit in 1970 for a cash payment of 14 million dollars. The OTS never in 22 years cited this bank for that Truty in Lending violation.
Had the OTS done its job in supervising and enforcing the 10 groups of violations committed by this bank regarding my mortgage I would have not gone through an unethical foreclosure.
The Office of Thrift Supervision stated in writing in December 16 2006 that they could not help me since there were “No Federal Consumer Banking Regulations.

Simply put- the consumer has no rights to address,contest, object or question the mortgage Banker.
Accordingly Congress who sells its legislative gifts to the wealthy and powerful banks that financially endow them has no interest in protecting the mortgage loan borrower.
Vote in 2010 for change.

Michael LittleBig
Cleveland Ohio
08:32 AM on 04/13/2010
Correction The bank settled this class action lawsuit in 2007 not 1970.
MLB
04:03 PM on 04/12/2010
Simon .... Dodd's legacy is already written in stone ... Corporate goon and Fleecing Father.
As for the Kanjorski Amendment ... I think you're probably right, but the REAL solution to what ails the financial sector is Very Simple .... raise margin requirements to 80% of the full value of the asset. Yep, 80% ... just enough for a little steerage and tax planning. All others are just gambling and should be directed to the nearest casino, where 50% of their losses will go towards the pertinent State budget.
12:30 PM on 04/12/2010
Americans will not be insulted again. If Congress takes the attitude that the public is too dumb to understand financial reform, we will have nothing meaningful. For those of us who lost 30-40% of our retirement funds, we have the 1099's for losses that must be carried forward for years, probably until death to remind us. Too big to fail is being forgotten if there is no provision in Dodd's bill to separate banking from investing. If Congress does not get serious, the whole country will be Tea Partiers and remove all of them until we get a successful result. Giving oversight to one person is a recipe for building a fifedom and a continuation of fraud.

It used to be that Congress was our watchdog, and monopolies were broken up routinely. Our congress gets an F for failing us.

If the constitution is silent on removing Congressmen, it means we can.
09:47 AM on 04/12/2010
I was listening to NPR last week and heard a story about how some hedge funds were gaming the system and magnifying the economic collapse. If what they did is not illegal we are in a world of hurt. Here is a link to the story it will truly make you angry.

http://www.propublica.org/feature/all-the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble
08:32 AM on 04/12/2010
Dodd is thinking about the future. His future. Maybe a future in Banking. Or something on Wall Street with a corner office and a limo at the door to take him to lunch. A fat check and a lot of "I dunno."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
flabingo
03:24 AM on 04/12/2010
Change we can believe in. Not possible from Dodd. Too bad that Eliot Spitzer is not usable. The key is the person picked. The SEC has had plenty pf authority to be effective, but reaing about Madoff, we realize they were a disaster. Step one, admit we have no effective control over these financial behemoths. Step two. Put Paul Volcker and Elizebeth Warren in charge to figure it out.
08:03 PM on 04/11/2010
The way the author is using the word "Regulator", it is terribly chosen!

There are three simple criteria that must ALL be present within any Regulatory body:

1. Capability
2. Independence from that which is regulated
3. Responsibility and authority to enforce regulations

Congress fails miserably on 1, 2, and 3!

The Federal Reserve fails miserably on 2!

Treasury could do it with the right additional skilled resources. The GAO also needs additional skilled resources to provide independent audit.

However, without new laws to underpin regulations, nobody is doing anything! An economic gun (e.g., CDS) is being held to the head of the entire world.
photo
Robson
Apolitical / nonpartisan blogging on HP since 2005
05:25 PM on 04/11/2010
The regulators will never do their job objectively, diligently or conscientiously. It is because either their own hierarchy or those in Congress with oversight are compromised and in the bag to those they are entrusted to regulate. Its always about connections.

An example of such an outcome was made perfectly clear in the Bernie Madoff scam where the SEC turned a blind eye to obvious fraud even when they were handed the evidence on a silver platter. Madoff was wired to the SEC, and he and his trusting wealthy investors (who didn't want Madoff investigated) were wired to members of the Senate that had the influence to squelch any investigation. Now these "victims" are still lobbying to made whole by Wall Street and by taxpayers who had nothing to do with their reckless non-diversified investing. Millions of Americans who diversified their investments were scammed by a financial system, that in total was almost as corrupt as Madoff's and Stanfords, but they will see nothing because they aren't connected.
photo
therealist2000
The day We the People bring down Corporate America
03:03 PM on 04/11/2010
now that dodd is leaving the senate, he has nothing to loose...voters figured out he is wall street's man finally....and if he passes a tough bill, wall street will not give him work or a job to continue feeding his family.....
photo
therealist2000
The day We the People bring down Corporate America
03:01 PM on 04/11/2010
i challenge anybody to find a piece of legislation that dodd put together that hurt wall street or kicked wall street in the pants......
photo
therealist2000
The day We the People bring down Corporate America
02:58 PM on 04/11/2010
the dodd bill cannot be amended because of the man...as a wall street's man in government, he will not hurt wall street....he will put together a bill that looks tough but under the hood is as weak as possible...he knows who is putting food on his table......
photo
therealist2000
The day We the People bring down Corporate America
02:50 PM on 04/11/2010
dodd is in the pockets of wall street.
02:49 PM on 04/11/2010
END THE FED - There is only ONE reform : Return the power of ISSUANCE of Currency to the Congress and the People . Abolish the Federal Reserve Note - THAT'S reform .
photo
therealist2000
The day We the People bring down Corporate America
04:51 PM on 04/11/2010
You must be a Ron Paul supporter....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WorkhelpWorkhelp
Control your money locally. Charter banks now.
01:15 AM on 04/13/2010
Exactly.

That's what is revealed in www.SecretOfOz.com

You will will love this CD.
02:14 PM on 04/11/2010
Just about anyone other than Dodd or Frank should be writing the bill. Both were instrumental in creating this mess. And if anyone forgot, Chris Dodd accepted a mortgage from Countrywide at a below market rate. And Dodd's father was was one of only six people censured by the Senate in the 20th century. How can anyone who has at least a half functioning brain even trust Dodd?
photo
RonK Michigan
Half of the people you know are below average
10:37 AM on 04/11/2010
Congress "can't fix it" is the same old Bush "what, me worry" attitude. ASSuming the regulators will actually regulate is a fool's folly. Congress MAKES the rule and the regulatory agencies ENFORCE it - no more "Lets seeeeeeeee......My next job will be at Goldman, do I really want to force them to do something they don't want to?" We all know the answer to that question.

Ronk’s Steven Wright Quote Du-Jour:
“If “con” is the opposite of “pro”, then what is the opposite of progress?”
11:42 AM on 04/11/2010
Ron, the opposite of "pro"gress is "republican.