SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Senator's Proposal a Nudge, Not an Assault, on 'Too Big To Fail' Banks
New law would stipulate larger banks keep more cash on hand, but is slim on challenging Wall Street dominance
Apr 24, 2013
A new bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on Wednesday is designed to curtail--though by no means end--the possibility of future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street financial firms like the ones that followed the financial collapse in 2008.
Ostensibly the bill aims to make smaller, regional banks more competitive by putting large burdens on the nation's behemoth institutions, but it is not clear how much political traction the bill will receive, nor whether--if enacted--it would actually succeed in uprooting or fracturing the biggest banks.
Vitter and Brown explain the thinking behind the bill in a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday:
Today, the nation's four largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- are nearly $2 trillion larger than they were before the crisis, with a greater market share than ever. And the federal help continues -- not as direct bailouts, but in the form of an implicit government guarantee. The market knows that the government won't allow these institutions to fail.
The bill proposed by the two Senators seeks to rein in large banks--defined as those with more than $500 billion in assets-- not by breaking them up, but by raising capital requirements on a sliding scale so that larger banks would have to hold more assets in order to prevent a situation where over-leveraged "too big to fail" firms find themselves on the brink of collapse or insolvency.
As BusinessWeek explains, the law would demand "a 15 percent capital requirement for so-called megabanks as a way to reduce risk and remove the perception that they would get bailouts in a crisis. Midsize and regional banks would need to have 8 percent capital relative to assets and the bill is 'silent' on capital for institutions below $50 billion in assets."
Politico adds:
Despite the duo's assertion that the legislation is not aimed at breaking up megabanks, industry leaders gathered at the National Press Club on Tuesday expressed concerns about the potentially negative impact the bill could have on the broader financial system.
Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum -- a group that represents CEOs of the large banks and financial services companies -- warned that the higher capital standards that Brown and Vitter are advocating could hurt the economy.
Despite the banking industry's predictable opposition, however, Sen. Brown argues that splintering the biggest banks would likely benefit, not hurt, the economy. As the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports:
The senators want the major banks to increase their own tangible equity so that shareholders, and not just taxpayers, take responsibility for their risky actions. They want the banks to have greater liquidity by holding more assets they can immediately turn into cash in a financial crisis. They say they want to keep Wall Street banks that enjoy government backing from gaming the financial system with credit derivatives and other risk-inflated schemes, which even JP Morgan Chase's own employees failed to catch until too late.
By extension, their bill could result in some banks spinning off non-banking financial divisions into new, non-banking companies that don't enjoy government protection. While not the goal of this legislation, that would not necessarily be bad, Brown said.
"When people spin off subsidiaries, it is more likely to create jobs," he said in an interview, citing the opinion of former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and the experiences of the oil trusts 100 years ago. "If this causes the banks to begin to spin off various assets they have, you will find likely job creation, not the opposite."
__________________________________________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A new bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on Wednesday is designed to curtail--though by no means end--the possibility of future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street financial firms like the ones that followed the financial collapse in 2008.
Ostensibly the bill aims to make smaller, regional banks more competitive by putting large burdens on the nation's behemoth institutions, but it is not clear how much political traction the bill will receive, nor whether--if enacted--it would actually succeed in uprooting or fracturing the biggest banks.
Vitter and Brown explain the thinking behind the bill in a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday:
Today, the nation's four largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- are nearly $2 trillion larger than they were before the crisis, with a greater market share than ever. And the federal help continues -- not as direct bailouts, but in the form of an implicit government guarantee. The market knows that the government won't allow these institutions to fail.
The bill proposed by the two Senators seeks to rein in large banks--defined as those with more than $500 billion in assets-- not by breaking them up, but by raising capital requirements on a sliding scale so that larger banks would have to hold more assets in order to prevent a situation where over-leveraged "too big to fail" firms find themselves on the brink of collapse or insolvency.
As BusinessWeek explains, the law would demand "a 15 percent capital requirement for so-called megabanks as a way to reduce risk and remove the perception that they would get bailouts in a crisis. Midsize and regional banks would need to have 8 percent capital relative to assets and the bill is 'silent' on capital for institutions below $50 billion in assets."
Politico adds:
Despite the duo's assertion that the legislation is not aimed at breaking up megabanks, industry leaders gathered at the National Press Club on Tuesday expressed concerns about the potentially negative impact the bill could have on the broader financial system.
Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum -- a group that represents CEOs of the large banks and financial services companies -- warned that the higher capital standards that Brown and Vitter are advocating could hurt the economy.
Despite the banking industry's predictable opposition, however, Sen. Brown argues that splintering the biggest banks would likely benefit, not hurt, the economy. As the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports:
The senators want the major banks to increase their own tangible equity so that shareholders, and not just taxpayers, take responsibility for their risky actions. They want the banks to have greater liquidity by holding more assets they can immediately turn into cash in a financial crisis. They say they want to keep Wall Street banks that enjoy government backing from gaming the financial system with credit derivatives and other risk-inflated schemes, which even JP Morgan Chase's own employees failed to catch until too late.
By extension, their bill could result in some banks spinning off non-banking financial divisions into new, non-banking companies that don't enjoy government protection. While not the goal of this legislation, that would not necessarily be bad, Brown said.
"When people spin off subsidiaries, it is more likely to create jobs," he said in an interview, citing the opinion of former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and the experiences of the oil trusts 100 years ago. "If this causes the banks to begin to spin off various assets they have, you will find likely job creation, not the opposite."
__________________________________________________
A new bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on Wednesday is designed to curtail--though by no means end--the possibility of future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street financial firms like the ones that followed the financial collapse in 2008.
Ostensibly the bill aims to make smaller, regional banks more competitive by putting large burdens on the nation's behemoth institutions, but it is not clear how much political traction the bill will receive, nor whether--if enacted--it would actually succeed in uprooting or fracturing the biggest banks.
Vitter and Brown explain the thinking behind the bill in a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday:
Today, the nation's four largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- are nearly $2 trillion larger than they were before the crisis, with a greater market share than ever. And the federal help continues -- not as direct bailouts, but in the form of an implicit government guarantee. The market knows that the government won't allow these institutions to fail.
The bill proposed by the two Senators seeks to rein in large banks--defined as those with more than $500 billion in assets-- not by breaking them up, but by raising capital requirements on a sliding scale so that larger banks would have to hold more assets in order to prevent a situation where over-leveraged "too big to fail" firms find themselves on the brink of collapse or insolvency.
As BusinessWeek explains, the law would demand "a 15 percent capital requirement for so-called megabanks as a way to reduce risk and remove the perception that they would get bailouts in a crisis. Midsize and regional banks would need to have 8 percent capital relative to assets and the bill is 'silent' on capital for institutions below $50 billion in assets."
Politico adds:
Despite the duo's assertion that the legislation is not aimed at breaking up megabanks, industry leaders gathered at the National Press Club on Tuesday expressed concerns about the potentially negative impact the bill could have on the broader financial system.
Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum -- a group that represents CEOs of the large banks and financial services companies -- warned that the higher capital standards that Brown and Vitter are advocating could hurt the economy.
Despite the banking industry's predictable opposition, however, Sen. Brown argues that splintering the biggest banks would likely benefit, not hurt, the economy. As the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports:
The senators want the major banks to increase their own tangible equity so that shareholders, and not just taxpayers, take responsibility for their risky actions. They want the banks to have greater liquidity by holding more assets they can immediately turn into cash in a financial crisis. They say they want to keep Wall Street banks that enjoy government backing from gaming the financial system with credit derivatives and other risk-inflated schemes, which even JP Morgan Chase's own employees failed to catch until too late.
By extension, their bill could result in some banks spinning off non-banking financial divisions into new, non-banking companies that don't enjoy government protection. While not the goal of this legislation, that would not necessarily be bad, Brown said.
"When people spin off subsidiaries, it is more likely to create jobs," he said in an interview, citing the opinion of former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and the experiences of the oil trusts 100 years ago. "If this causes the banks to begin to spin off various assets they have, you will find likely job creation, not the opposite."
__________________________________________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.