Washington is in the midst of its biennial guessing game about what
legislation will get the green light when the 108th Congress convenes
next month. Many Committee chairpersons, of course, are just waiting to
get their marching orders from the White House and their friends among
the army of lobbyists (aka campaign contributors).
But at least one new Committee Chairman -- Senator Richard Shelby of
Alabama -- is making it very clear that he isn't waiting on instructions
from anyone. The votes had hardly been counted from the November 5 election
when Senator Shelby announced an agenda for his Banking Committee that
sent an early wintry chill through the ranks of big lobbying firms on
K Street in Washington.
Shelby is talking about "safety and soundness" of financial
institutions, a phrase that had been all but dropped from the vocabulary
of most of the members of the House and Senate Banking Committees in the
rush to meet the demands of the financial industry for more power and
less regulation. And he is making it clear that federal regulators
charged with safety and soundness responsibilities meet those
responsibilities. It sounds like the regulators better be prepared to
make lots of trips to the Senate next year.
In interviews, the new Chairman has announced plans for hearings on
whether Congress went too far in the passage of the financial
modernization legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) in 1999 and, in the
process, jeopardized the safety and soundness of the banking system and
the taxpayer-backed deposit insurance funds. The key component of the
legislation was authority for banks, securities firms and insurance
companies to merge and form giant financial conglomerates.
Now the corporate scandals involved in the collapse of corporations like
Enron and World Com are raising new questions about the conflicts of
interest created by the legislation. Are banks making risky loans to
corporations to assure that their securities affiliates can peddle
lucrative investment banking services to the same corporation? Are there
other tying arrangements involving loan and investment products that
could jeopardize safety and soundness of insured banks? Shelby is giving
every indication that he intends to explore these questions fully.
His inquiry will add new heat to various investigations of lending and
securities underwriting relationships already underway involving banks
such as Citigroup, Suisse First Boston, and J. P. Morgan Chase.
Senator Shelby was assigned to the Senate Banking Committee in the late
1980s just as the savings and loan industry was collapsing, something
that undoubtedly influences his concern over the safety and soundness of
banks and the health of deposit insurance.
"It all goes right back to the insurance funds," he said in an interview
with the American Banker. "I believe that we have to look at setting
banking policy from the context of making sure the funds are sound, so
we will not visit the taxpayers again, like we did in the thrift debacle."
Shelby opposes increasing the current $100,000 insurance limit on
individual accounts and questions the "free ride" that banks are
receiving through the 1995 suspension of premiums for deposit insurance
for all but the most risk-prone banks.
"I never have insurance on any building I have unless I pay the
premium...I don't know what the premiums should be, but to just let a
few people pay the bank insurance premium and give everybody
insurance...that ought to be looked at," Shelby said when asked about
deposit insurance by a reporter.
Shelby is right. There is no legitimate rationale for the banks to
escape paying for their own insurance when the taxpayers are on the hook
for hundreds of billions of dollars for a bailout when the fund is
depleted. As the Senator points out that is exactly what happened in
1989 to the savings and loan insurance fund. Although largely overlooked
at the time and seldom mentioned, the bank insurance fund also fell into
the red in 1991, forcing Congress to adopt provisions for a $30 billion
contingency fund for commercial banks which is still on the books.
But, for all of his concern about safety and soundness and the viability
of deposit insurance funds, very high on his agenda is privacy -- the
safeguarding of financial, medical and other personal data of individuals.
During the consideration of the financial services legislation in 1999,
he and Representative Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts, fought
hard to include a strong privacy provision that would have required
consumers to have agreed in writing before any personal data could be
released by a bank, credit card company or other financial institution.
The consumer would have to "opt in" specifically to any data being sold
or otherwise distributed to any third party under the Shelby-Markey
provisions.
After strong privacy language failed on the floor of the Senate, Shelby
renewed the battle
when the House and Senate versions of the bill were being reconciled in
a joint conference.
Once again, the pro bank forces from both the Senate and House, pushed
hard by a horde of financial lobbyists, blocked Shelby's efforts and
adopted a privacy provision that provides no real privacy for the
personal information of financial consumers.
The weak privacy language was one of the big factors in Shelby casting
one of only eight votes in the Senate against the adoption of the
conference report for final passage of the financial services
modernization bill. Opponents of financial privacy may find the going
much tougher with Richard Shelby wearing the chairman's hat.
None of this is to suggest that consumers will not have reasons to
disagree with the Senator from Alabama on issues in coming months, for
example items like bank redlining and the Community Reinvestment Act.
But, Senator Shelby does come into the Chairmanship with a solid
understanding of the Senate Banking Committee's responsibility for
insisting on the safety and soundness of insured financial institutions,
tough oversight of regulatory agencies and the protection of citizens'
privacy. Those are some welcome and big steps forward.
###