Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It’s Time for the Big Banks to Spin Off their Craps Tables
Last week's "flash crash," which sent stocks plummeting 1,000 points in an afternoon, was just the latest indicator that the U.S. financial system is still spinning out of control and desperately in need of new rules.
Wagering On Angelina Jolie
When I visit London, I can drop into a corner kiosk and bet on anything I want. I can put down a million dollars on whether or not Angelina Jolie's next baby will be a boy or a girl, but these bets are regulated for what they are -- gambling. In America, the big banks can spend billions in a far more destructive type of speculation, but this speculation in the so-called "swaps" or derivatives market is completely unregulated.
Right now, the largest banks, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley control over 90 percent of the swaps market. Their activities do nothing to build the real economy, but are key to inflating Wall Street's outsized salaries. Goldman has not only been caught betting against America on the collapse of the housing market, it was also caught betting on the collapse of a trucking firm that employed 30,000 Americans. Goldman has peddled its toxic dreck to cities and towns around the world who have enough troubles and really do not need to be conned and impoverished by Wall Street behemoths. Now Greece is in flames and some U.S. banks and their destructive swaps and indices may be playing a role in that evolving tragedy.
To make mattes worse, all this gambling is currently supported by the Federal Reserve and backed by the taxpayer guarantee. If I lose my money when Angelina has her kid, I lose. When the big bank bids go awry, the taxpayer can be stuck with the bill in the form of big bank bailouts. As financial reform advances in the Senate, it's clear that the top priority for legislator is to make banking boring again.
It's Time to Make Banking Boring Again
The good news is that right now, the finance reform makes tremendous strides in this direction. Late in the game, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, demanded that provisions be put into the bill that would force the biggest banks to spin off their swaps desks into a separate entity. That entity can remain part of the bank holding company, but it no longer has access to the Federal Reserve's flow of funds and the FDIC's taxpayer guarantee.
"In my view, banks were never intended to perform these activities, which have been the single largest factor in these institutions growing so large that taxpayers had no choice but to bail them out in order to prevent total economic ruin," says Lincoln. In one fell swoop, her measure effectively spins off the craps table, protects the taxpayers and downsizes the behemoth banks. What's not to love? The howls from Wall Street could be heard in Wisconsin.
The bad news is that these strong provisions are under threat. And not just from Senator Judd Gregg (R- Wall Street) who is offering an amendment to strip the Lincoln language from the bill, but from well-respected observers like Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.
Volcker and Bair Are Wrong Say Experts
Volcker and Bair appear to have been spending too much time talking to Timothy Geithner who, like every big bank, opposes Lincoln's strong language. On this issue, they are simply wrong. Michael Greenberger, formerly Director of the Division of Trading and Markets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, says that "even an independent swap desk would be fully regulated, to make sure they have adequate capital reserves, abide by prudential conduct standards, as well as strict business conduct standards. Ninety per cent of swaps trading will be required to go through a clearinghouse with an exchange facility, so there will be transparency and capital adequacy."
Jane D'Arista, former staff economist for the Banking and Commerce Committees of the House of Representatives, goes further chastising Volcker and Bair for "strewing misinformation in the path of what, to date, is the most powerful structural change in the bill in terms of both mitigating risk and preventing future bailouts."
Think of it as "CitiBank" and "CitiCraps Inc." CitiCraps will continue to be regulated and they will have tougher capital and margin requirements under the bill, but taxpayers will not be on the hook a grifter's bad calls.
The fight now will be over amendment to strip or weaken the proposal. It's time to ask your Senator if they will vote to continue the Wall Street casino or vote to keep Blanche Lincoln's language in the bill.
- Posted in


4 Comments so far
Show AllIn my opinion this article misses the point since „swaps“ need not only be „regulated“ but must be OUTLAWED in order to prevent the next catastrophe and change the mindset of Wall Street speculators.
These “products of financial innovation” are completely immoral and illegitimate because they violate the basic premise of real insurance: that the person or entity who bears the risk of future damage is the one who buys the insurance, i.e. the owner of a house pays premiums for fire insurance and if the house burns down, they will be reimbursed by the insurer.
The crazy Wall Street version means that thousands of people can buy “insurance” against fire risk (of someone else’s house) and if it burns down, they get tons of money ....
In other words, not only bond-holders buy insurance against default of the issuer, but anybody can and if the big players are on this side of the game, then “the markets” work their magic to make the default more likely (in the case of fire insurance the incentive for committing arson would be immense or at least to corrupt the fire department if "insider-knowledge" suggests that a fire is imminent ...
See also AIG: the billions went to their counterparties like Goldman, Deutsche Bank, etc.)
So for “investors”, who bet against the risk bearer (benefit from the damage others will suffer, including financial ruin of a company or state), the inclination to increase that risk deliberately and make the bet on disaster a self-fulfilling prophecy is very high. This is totally unacceptable to society ...
Why had these products to be called “swaps”? To avoid any reference to “insurance”, as this would have meant that insurance principles were applicable and therefore the whole idea were criminal (as it actually is ...)
Forget the talk about “tougher capital and margin requirements” – this could only work if hedgefonds and the whole insane shadow banking system would be purged from the face of the earth, since their “freedom from regulatory intervention” and their obscene profits were the main incentive for the banks to adopt the same immoral and destabilizing financial practices for short term profits (while socializing the risks and losses ...)
This is what “competiton” really means: a race to the bottom as far as collective (moral and social) responsibility is concerned: As long as profit maximization remains the accepted organizing principle of society (reduced to be a servant to the economy), nothing will really change ...
Under this ideological regime, every regulatory attempt to enforce greater responsibility and honesty (for the benefit of “investors”, not primarily citizens, of course) leads to even greater efforts to cheat and cook the books. This applies not only to banks but also to governments: the “ EU Growth and Stability Pact”, intended to keep budget deficits down, had not the effect of greater budget discipline but of greater “creativity” (à la Enronitis) in hiding the ballooning debt:
http://www.socialpolitik.de/tagungshps/2005/Papers/Wolff.pdf
And (last not least):
Do national governments (even the mighty US) still have the political power to regulate the global financial oligarchy?
What about transnational institutions who are accountable to no-one like the WTO? What is their role in preventing regulation and ending the global hegemony of financial interests?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17467
Agreed.
FDR's New Deal provided the structure needed to control the financial industry and it worked flawlessly for over half a century until it was dismantled.The banksters didn't like the New Deal because their earning potential was limited to the same levels as their counterparts in other industries.
After dismantling the New Deal each bankster's ANNUAL income now exceeds the LIFETIME incomes of their counterparts in other industries which gives them lots of spare dough to bribe politicians with. The high incomes not only apply to the top dog banksters, but also apply to the rest of the bankster food chain clear down to middle managers.
"....Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley control over 90 percent of the swaps market. Their activities do nothing to build the real economy, but are key to inflating Wall Street's outsized salaries."
Yes, their activities are key to their inflated salaries!Somewhere around 40% of the banks'total earnings go to salaries and bonuses.
How do you like those Golden Delicious apples? I would be screaming bloody murder if I owned shares in any of those companies!
let us not forget,
It Was under George Bush
Administration, Who created those Luscious Perks, Extras, or Executive Pay Golden Parachutes!
How you like these Apples:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_Administration_created_executive_pay_loophole_1215.html