Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Treasury Dept Working To Defeat Derivatives Proposal 'Of Utmost Importance' To Reforming Wall Street
A Senate proposal to force banks to shed their lucrative yet risk-laden derivatives units -- which is vehemently opposed by Wall Street -- is gaining steam, picking up the support of some regional Federal Reserve chiefs with more on the way.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (2nd L) speaks next to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke during the opening ceremony of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing May 24, 2010. (REUTERS/Frederic J. Brown/Pool)
Yet President Barack Obama's Treasury Department, led by Timothy
Geithner, continues to oppose the measure, Senate aides say, who add
that Treasury is supporting Wall Street over Main Street by opposing
the measure considered of "utmost importance" to financial stability.
"It shows the access of the major Wall Street banks in the Treasury Department in spades," one Senate aide said on the condition of anonymity. Assistant Treasury Secretary for Financial Institutions Michael S. Barr is said to be leading Treasury's efforts.
Senate aides say that more letters of support from other regional Fed presidents are on the way.
Treasury is joined in its opposition to the measure by the Federal Reserve's Washington-based Board of Governors and the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair.
Meanwhile, supporters include the longest-serving policy maker in the Fed, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Hoenig and Fisher wrote letters of support last week to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, the author of the provision, referring to it as "of utmost importance to our nation's long-term financial and economic stability."
"The dynamic with two Federal Reserve presidents coming out for it publicly, and the fact that there are more who are probably going to come out for it, means that [Treasury] can't resist it any longer," the Senate aide said. "They're going to have to accept it, because [the regional Fed support] is basically undermining both Bernanke as well as Geithner."
Lincoln's proposal would compel the nation's megabanks to move their swaps-dealing units, which deal and trade in a type of financial derivative product, into a separately-capitalized institution within the larger bank holding company. The affected firms collectively would have to raise tens of billions of dollars to protect their swaps desks in case their bets go bad. Or, they could disband the activity altogether.
Along with a few foreign banks, the nation's largest domestic banks essentially control the swaps market in the U.S. By forcing them to divest their units into separate affiliates, which in turn would compel them to raise money to capitalize these affiliates, Lincoln's measure could force them to scale down their operations. At the least, supporters say, it would force them to have enough cash on hand in case their bets begin to sour, saving taxpayers from having to step in to prop up the banks like they did in 2008. That taxpayer support continues today.
In a report Monday, the Financial Times reported that former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker softened his initial opposition to Lincoln's measure, quoting him as saying: "I tend to think of the bank holding company as the relevant organization."
Of the nearly 8,000 banks in the U.S., less than 25 would be seriously affected.
"It's really a Wall Street bank issue, not a community bank issue," the Senate aide said.
Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams insisted the agency has not taken a position on Lincoln's proposal.
The measure is supported by financial reform groups and academics 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, say proponents of the measure.
"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 and Fisher wrote in separate letters in 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," the regional Fed chiefs said.
Senate aides say that Lincoln is clarifying the legislation in order to allow for banks to appropriately hedge for interest rate risk, like when banks offer consumers fixed-rate 30-year mortgages not knowing whether interest rates are going to rise or fall over the life of the loan; to have a phase-in period of up to 24 months so banks have time to complete the transition in an orderly manner; to ensure that it's clear that bank holding companies can house these swaps-dealing units (some lawyers argue that the legislation is vague on this point); and to ensure that banks can continue to offer swaps to customers in conjunction with traditional bank products like loans.
"Banks that have been acting as banks will be able to continue doing business as they always have," Lincoln said May 5 on the Senate floor. "Community banks using swaps to hedge their interest rate risk on their loan portfolio will continue to be able to do so. Most important, we want them to do so.
In addition to Fisher and Hoenig, Lincoln cites support from the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Consumer Federation of America, the AARP, labor unions and leading economists.
"I think this shows that the [Fed's] Board of Governors and Treasury are out of touch with how a lot of other people are thinking about this stuff," said the Senate aide. "We're at the end of the game here, and people are standing up and saying, 'You're not addressing the underlying problem the way you ought to be.' It's tragic."
A spokesman for FDIC chief Bair declined to comment.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson indicated his support for the measure last week during House-Senate negotiations over combining the chambers' separate versions of financial reform legislation.
Heather Booth, head of Americans for Financial Reform, a large coalition of consumer and labor groups, said that she was told as of Monday morning that some House conferees are still pushing to substitute the lower chamber's derivatives language for Lincoln's Senate language. Using the House language as the base would be a setback to reform, said Booth, and the group is working hard to keep bank-friendly Democrats from seizing the advantage.
"It is still an issue. We are concerned where the New Dems are on that," said Booth, referring to the New Democrat Coalition, made up largely of suburban Democrats with backing from the financial services industry.
The Senate aide expressed confidence in Lincoln's measure withstanding challenges.
Reform groups are also pressing hard for a tougher version of the Volcker Rule, which would prevent banks from trading with their own money, unrelated to the benefit of their clients. The groups, along with Senate aides, insist that it and Lincoln's derivatives rules are complementary, not alternatives. Reformers are pushing for both to be included in the final bill.
A White House spokesman said of Lincoln's spin-off measure that "we continue to see this specific provision as only one small piece of the sweeping derivatives reform that Senators Dodd and Lincoln and Chairman Frank have championed. The Administration will not get ahead of the work of the conference committee as members of the House and Senate merge their respective bills. Our goal is to see a strong bill on the President's desk by July 4th."
"At the end of the day, this might end up being what people will refer to instead of Glass-Steagall, but Volcker-Lincoln," the Senate aide said.



39 Comments so far
Show AllI am "shocked! shocked!" to learn that Geithner (and Summers, and Bernanke, and Obama) would be on the side of the Big Banksters.
What a surprise that they would do the bidding of a sector which was one of the biggest campaign contributors to Obama and Democrats!
The Obama Regime continues the Dubya Regime's work without missing a beat.
The U.S. government has been hijacked by Cheney, Geithner, et al, and the folks served by those scoundrels.
I disagree here, aspergerian. Cheney's no longer in office, and Obama is the one who's at fault for appointing guys like Geitner, Bernkanke, and all the other people present in his administration that helped get us into this mess in the first place. Not to defend Cheney and Co, but, since they're no longer in office, we can't blame them any longer.
This is the great lie of American Democracy: Change the government and its a new game! It is an old hoary myth.
In reality, Cheney is not in office but his backers are.
And let us stay real: The backers are the people who vote.
'Power to the People' gone wrong.
Radical change is needed. Until then the story above will probably be set up by the dynamic that caused and continues to cause the mess called USA.
Apple Pie cannot be trusted. It is that serious.
get rid of geithner
Ditto!
"get rid of geithner." i couldn't agree more. but, sadly obama likes geithner, summers and bernanke because his position is in agreement with theirs.
ditto
If Timmy is against it, then it MUST be good for the country.
Geithner ia a drooling lapdog.
I don't get it. I don't think Obama wants to force either Bernanke or Geithner to resign, but I worry that his analytical time is fast approaching an end. This provision, as far as I can tell, is absolutely necessary, and if not included, may well lead to the fabled Second Wave Recession for the same reasons it did during FDR's turn at bat. It's really too bad Obama didn't replace the business funding level of megabanking a year ago instead of just giving money to them and waiting and waiting and waiting for them to make it available on Main Street. It is these two positions which provide the keel for my increasing apprehension of this presidency -- until I consider the alternative (which resulted in Nixon's election) Nonetheless, I fear that this administration may well become known as a "lost opportunity".
Money has subjective value, and ultimately depends on credibility. Wall Street has none. Until that layer of the economy regains that perception by the public, we ain't gonna make it until the problem has run and rerun its course. I really don't trust Timothy. Too much mask.
It's another theatrical exercise so that those in Congress who are running in the midterm elections can claim credit for trying to rein in the banks. Meanwhile, the deck is stacked with the Geithners, Bernackes, Emanuels, all the boys with Gold Mansacks, Republicans and stealth Republicans in donkey suits so nothing of substance will be accomplished.
When election time comes around, the question to ask incumbents is "Yeah, but did you succeed?" If not, they are incompetent at best. Tell them to get out of town.
Joe
It should be apparent that Obama is only a shill and tool of the real owners of the country.
Obama looks like a minion and a stooge.
If Obama had, which he does not, any dignity, he would resign.
Yet another media came being played out inside the beltway.
Typical Obama: pay lip service to one thing, and do the opposite behind closed doors. Barak has to defend his corporate wall street cash machine filling his pockets for his next run.
Nowhere man
Obama is a one term man, of change no more.
Who was he really working for anyway?
He might as well have been the bankers whore.
He has become a very good oil spill way.
He has been a real Nowhere man,
Destroying people in nowhere Lands,
Made fine speeches but had a Nowhere plan
And all those wars turned people into nobodies.
Elected and chosen by the elite.
A calling for all their special favours.
So good at keeping all the media sweet.
And never making the rich do hard labours.
He is as blind as they can be.
Money friends have their hands in our pockets.
He Just sees what they like to see.
Shiney dollars have replaced his eye sockets.
Does not seem to have a point of view,
Not leading anywhere, and does what he is told
Being pulled around the same old rich stew.
Those that do not lead, get led by the bold.
I do not blame him, a product of the cultural,
Of long inculcation by the national habit.
Not much else seems in the realm of possible
The reapers have long since taken over the planet.
Get ready for Sarah Palin , god help us...
NO that's a good thing. Whatever hasten's the fall of the Empire.
Obama just left out the Baby part, of the drill baby drill.
Obama seems just as bloodthirsty, and also dangerous to our Constitution.
I don't want Sarah Palin, or McCain, or any other right of center 'progressive' in the White House like our current president.
I will never vote lesser of two evils again. In fact, given the level of betrayal at all levels of government from the House, to the Senate, the the Presidency and his corrupt cabinet, I doubt that I'll ever vote for a Democrat again. I apologize for being one of those who voted for Oilbama. I'd take my vote back in a heartbeat if I could.
I re-registered as independent.
Volcker-Lincoln is nothing more than a tube of pig lipstick, cynically applied. I guess the Obama Administration prefers its pigs au naturel.
It is called "putting on your makeup for your remake"
There are many shades of this lipstick, they are going
to do a full facial for the elections.,,and just wait
for the cakes of makeup put on before the 2012 elections.
You won't recognize their rhetoric, just their actions.
Barack Obama is better than any of the alternatives that might have a notion to run against him next time around, but he certainly smacks more and more of being in the pocket of the power elite/the oligarchy. As a nation, we do not need Bernanke, Geithner, Sommers and some of the rest of the big moneyed folks, the Wall Streeters, Big Bankers etc. Between the big bankers and mega-money folks and BP, we are certainly headed in the wrong (and dastardly) direction.
WHEN do we actually fall off the cliff???
That happened before we were born. It is just a long way to the bottom.
excellent! that would explain alot...
how much farther, one wonders?
I am curious, why is Sheila Bair opposed?
I have the same question.
Here's an answer, from a May interview:
On her opposition to derivatives spinoffs:
“This really came up at the last minute. We want better regulation of derivatives. We think that will help reduce a risk. We think derivatives across the board need some market oversight. This idea that somehow now banks can’t be doing derivatives, even hedging, is really not a good idea. Derivatives are not all evil. The CDS (credit default swaps) market has gotten a lot of well-deserved negative publicity. In particular in that area we need more oversight transparency and regulation. The vast majority of what banks do is interest rate risk management and that’s something banks need to do. So they (derivatives) hedge their own interest rate risk. This (derivatives) is absolutely core to what banks do.”
http://wallstreetpit.com/26201-sheila-bair-on-derivatives-greece-and-financial-reform
to begin with, the stock market, Wall Steet, why regulate it?
I am a long time lefty, and believe in strong regulation
of agencies such as the FDA, OSHA , EPA, LABOR.ECT.
But why any regulation what so ever on the stock market?
Let it fly, if it kills itself, so be it.
Who do they need to protect?
Anyone that has money to risk in the stock market ought tobe
doing it at their own risk and I should not have to bail
one person out that loses money after giving it to known
crooks to invest for them.
If unions and companies decided to invest retirements in the
stockmarket, it is the employees problem, not mine.
If someone decides they want a 401k for retirement, they
well know it is going to a casino, screw em.
No regulations what so ever, it may sound Ron Paulish, but
I don't care, BUYER BEWARE. and screw and bunch of economics,
derivitives, futures....if someone wants to invest in that,
I will support their right to do so, but if they lose,
shame the hell on them.,,,start figuring retirements that
aren't dependent on Wall Street.(like they used to be)
(like they used to be)
Just out of curiosity, how did it used to be?
If a bank sell a loan, and does not inform the customer
to make him aware of who he owes money to now, they should
be libel, not the customer..
A couple simple laws could repair that problem.
Derivitives...If one needs to go to college to under what
one is....they shouldn't be investing in the stock market.
Handing your hard earned money over to an investor is your
choise, if they make unethical investments with it, so what?
Not my problem, and if I did do such a thing at least I
would know that I had gone to a casino with unethical souls,
sharks, I wouldn't have the nerve to cry to the feds about
my dumb mistake.
Bottom line, capitolism and the stock market wouldn't last
five years on its own., no regulations, and it shouldn't.
It is always going to be socialism for the rich as long as
Wall Street exists.
It can't exist on its own, just like our agriculture,
dead in the water , yet they call it free market.
All these Havard and Yale economists are really dumber than
a box of rocks.
The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept., set up by Congress to stop Wall Street plutocrats from destroying the real economy and causing poverty, destruction, and death with another Great Depression, has become controlled by and is now working for Wall Street plutocrats.
Dumber than rocks and just as predictable.
Please read this article in May's Monthly Review outlining the rise of finance capital. There's a chart showing the connection of individuals representing finance capital and the Obama administration. Very interesting indeed ...
http://monthlyreview.org/100501foster-holleman.php
Cheers.
Why don't we just call a halt to this charade? It is common knowledge that both the Senate and House banking committees are riddled with crooks who don't even try to hide their self-serving interests, not to mention those in the White House.
If we really want to revamp the financial industries, all we have to do is appoint an independent commission to put together a bill that will benefit the American people, with no tampering by the White House, the Congress or Wall Street allowed.
William Black, Chairman
Elizabeth Warren
Brooksley Born
Joseph Stiglitz
Simon Johnson
Nouriel Rabini
James Galbraith
Robert Reich
Paul Krugman
Real leaders and accomplished managers instinctively know that, in order to solve a problem of this magnitude, you assemble the best minds available and give them free rein to do what has to be done. It is the only way the problem will be solved to the benefit of the American people; the ones who really matter.
Radical economists deserve some attention, especially considering their predictions have been correct and (unlike people like Krugman who supported NAFTA when it was being voted on and still supports many of the basic precepts of neo-liberal, junk economics. I like him but he doesn't say what more radical economists are willing to say and THEY, not him, have predicted the horror that NAFTA like deals would be for all countries involved.
Robin Hahnel is amazing. Here's a few articles about the East Asian Financial Crisis (you might notice some similarities with what we're facing today and the horrible remedies being offered by junk economists):
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/046.html
http://www.zcommunications.org/capitalist-globalism-in-crisis-by-robin-hahnel-1-2-3-4
Michael Hudson "Neo-Liberalism and the Counter-Enlightenment" (long but very interesting)
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/05/neoliberalism-and-the-counter-enlightenment/
John Bellamy Foster (has a great book about the financial crisis) "The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis"
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080401foster.php
Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff at the Monthly Review (who came up with the term "financialization" of the economy and have been writing about capitalism's increasing reliance on finance for about 30 years)
Someone also who talks about the financial crisis but also the overall fallacies of "neo-liberal economics", especially in relation to the environment is Herman Daly (his book "Beyond Growth" is required reading for anyone wanting to understand the basics of ecological economics and to understand WHY the economic is causing many of the environmental problems we see today:
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
I like your list but many of the more radical economists tend to get ignored by liberals and they shouldn't be.
Sometimes I think there is no distinction between Markets and World of Warcraft!
Please read "Blind Woman's Bluff" http://wp.me/pVYiX-i
"Of all the technical indicators around, none is as accurate at predicting market or sector turning points as the deliberate crashing of my computer system. If my poor little PC is weeping buckets of computer-tears and writhing in computer-pain – trust me, something wonderful or dreadful is about to happen to the markets."
(Dr. Ellen Brandt is founder of the Centrists and Media Revolution Groups at Linked In and the Centrists, Boomer Network, and Ivy League Twibes at Twitter. The former long-time business editor of a major US women's magazine, earlier in her career, she served as a corporate investor relations manager and was a regional vice president of the National Investor Relations Institute.)
A modest proposal. Allow banks to gamble as much as they want but deny FDIC coverage to their customers. So long as their depositors understand that their money is not insured, they are free to risk it. And the taxpayers can cheer from the sidelines indifferent to which way the bets go. A vote for free markets, and for taxpayer equity.