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
The Bank Policy Institute, a lobbying group for big banks, drew criticism for a policy memo suggesting financial deregulation as a response to the coronavirus outbreak. (Photo: Phillipp/Flickr/cc)
You'll Never Guess How Big Banks Want the Fed to Handle the Coronavirus: More Wall Street Deregulation
"Surely, the big banks aren't craven enough to use COVID-19 as an excuse to lobby for long-sought regulatory rollbacks, right? Wrong!"
Mar 02, 2020
A lobbying group for big banks in the United States came under fire Tuesday from financial industry experts for pressuring federal officials to push through long-sought regulatory rollbacks in response to the worldwide economic concerns sparked by the global coronavirus outbreak.
On Sunday, Bank Policy Institute (BPI) chief executive Greg Baer, head of research Francisco Covas, and chief economist Bill Nelson published a post on the group's website entitled "Actions the Fed Could Take in Response to COVID-19." The BPI is a lobbying group whose members include Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.
While the trio of BPI leaders presented the suggestions as steps that the Federal Reserve could take "to allow banks to continue providing credit to businesses and households and liquidity to financial markets," financial industry experts "lambasted" the big bank group's requests as "opportunistic and unnecessary," according to the Washington Post.
As the Post reported Tuesday:
The recommendations are "transparently opportunistic," said Jeremy Kress, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan School of Business. For years, the banking industry resisted calls for higher capital requirements that could have been used as a buffer, or a rainy-day fund, during economic turmoil, he said. Those buffers could have been turned off now to give the industry more flexibility to make loans during the current economic uncertainty, Kress said.
But without those buffers reducing existing capital requirements, which are currently set at minimum levels, the timing could be risky, he said.
"The whole idea of capital requirements and stress-testing banks is to make sure they have enough cushion to absorb losses" during an economic crisis, Kress said.
In a tweet sharing the report, Kress summed up the BPI move as follows: "Surely, the big banks aren't craven enough to use COVID-19 as an excuse to lobby for long-sought regulatory rollbacks, right? Wrong!"
\u201cSurely, the big banks aren't craven enough to use COVID-19 as an excuse to lobby for long-sought regulatory rollbacks, right?\n\nWrong!\n\nI spoke with @washingtonpost about @bankpolicy's "transparently opportunistic" policy proposals.\n\nhttps://t.co/B6a7TdBecf\u201d— Jeremy Kress (@Jeremy Kress) 1583260292
BPI's recommendations for the Fed include cutting reserve requirements and relaxing "stress tests" that force banks to show they can survive an economic crisis.
Graham Steele, the director of the Corporations and Society Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business, tweeted that Kress was "100% correct" in characterizing the big banks' behavior as opportunistic.
"The banking industry's hammer is deregulation, and everything--from economic booms to recessions--looks like a nail," said Steele. "In fact, well capitalized banks are better able to lend throughout the business cycle."
Another financial expert suggested to the Post that the group's proposals were too extreme:
Deregulation has already gone too far, and the coronavirus could pose unique challenges to the financial system that are still unclear, said Larry White, a professor at New York University School of Business. As the virus spreads some people may not be able to work, shop and travel, he said, and "that is a problem for businesses because at the end of the day they won't be able to sell stuff."
"But I am not sure that is a good argument for, 'Oh, we need to do something about liquidity.' That is overreach by BPI," White said.
The Post report provoked criticism of BPI and alarm over the group's tactics.
Economist Betsey Stevenson, an associate professor at the University of Michigan Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy who served on the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration, called the Post's report "absolutely terrifying."
Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, offered a summary of BPI's recommendations on Twitter:
\u201cBig banks\u2019 solution to coronavirus: allow bank gambling, reduce capital, make seat belts optional, end speed limits. https://t.co/Bwsd5I5ABP\u201d— Bartlett Naylor (@Bartlett Naylor) 1583260951
The Fed on Tuesday made an emergency cut of half a percentage point to the benchmark U.S. interest rate. "The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong," Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told reporters, according to CNBC. However, he added, "the spread of the coronavirus has brought new challenges and risks."
While mainland China has been hit hardest by COVID-19, there are confirmed cases in at least 70 countries. Since the outbreak began late last year, the virus has infected more than 92,000 people and led to more than 3,100 deaths.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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 lobbying group for big banks in the United States came under fire Tuesday from financial industry experts for pressuring federal officials to push through long-sought regulatory rollbacks in response to the worldwide economic concerns sparked by the global coronavirus outbreak.
On Sunday, Bank Policy Institute (BPI) chief executive Greg Baer, head of research Francisco Covas, and chief economist Bill Nelson published a post on the group's website entitled "Actions the Fed Could Take in Response to COVID-19." The BPI is a lobbying group whose members include Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.
While the trio of BPI leaders presented the suggestions as steps that the Federal Reserve could take "to allow banks to continue providing credit to businesses and households and liquidity to financial markets," financial industry experts "lambasted" the big bank group's requests as "opportunistic and unnecessary," according to the Washington Post.
As the Post reported Tuesday:
The recommendations are "transparently opportunistic," said Jeremy Kress, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan School of Business. For years, the banking industry resisted calls for higher capital requirements that could have been used as a buffer, or a rainy-day fund, during economic turmoil, he said. Those buffers could have been turned off now to give the industry more flexibility to make loans during the current economic uncertainty, Kress said.
But without those buffers reducing existing capital requirements, which are currently set at minimum levels, the timing could be risky, he said.
"The whole idea of capital requirements and stress-testing banks is to make sure they have enough cushion to absorb losses" during an economic crisis, Kress said.
In a tweet sharing the report, Kress summed up the BPI move as follows: "Surely, the big banks aren't craven enough to use COVID-19 as an excuse to lobby for long-sought regulatory rollbacks, right? Wrong!"
\u201cSurely, the big banks aren't craven enough to use COVID-19 as an excuse to lobby for long-sought regulatory rollbacks, right?\n\nWrong!\n\nI spoke with @washingtonpost about @bankpolicy's "transparently opportunistic" policy proposals.\n\nhttps://t.co/B6a7TdBecf\u201d— Jeremy Kress (@Jeremy Kress) 1583260292
BPI's recommendations for the Fed include cutting reserve requirements and relaxing "stress tests" that force banks to show they can survive an economic crisis.
Graham Steele, the director of the Corporations and Society Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business, tweeted that Kress was "100% correct" in characterizing the big banks' behavior as opportunistic.
"The banking industry's hammer is deregulation, and everything--from economic booms to recessions--looks like a nail," said Steele. "In fact, well capitalized banks are better able to lend throughout the business cycle."
Another financial expert suggested to the Post that the group's proposals were too extreme:
Deregulation has already gone too far, and the coronavirus could pose unique challenges to the financial system that are still unclear, said Larry White, a professor at New York University School of Business. As the virus spreads some people may not be able to work, shop and travel, he said, and "that is a problem for businesses because at the end of the day they won't be able to sell stuff."
"But I am not sure that is a good argument for, 'Oh, we need to do something about liquidity.' That is overreach by BPI," White said.
The Post report provoked criticism of BPI and alarm over the group's tactics.
Economist Betsey Stevenson, an associate professor at the University of Michigan Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy who served on the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration, called the Post's report "absolutely terrifying."
Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, offered a summary of BPI's recommendations on Twitter:
\u201cBig banks\u2019 solution to coronavirus: allow bank gambling, reduce capital, make seat belts optional, end speed limits. https://t.co/Bwsd5I5ABP\u201d— Bartlett Naylor (@Bartlett Naylor) 1583260951
The Fed on Tuesday made an emergency cut of half a percentage point to the benchmark U.S. interest rate. "The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong," Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told reporters, according to CNBC. However, he added, "the spread of the coronavirus has brought new challenges and risks."
While mainland China has been hit hardest by COVID-19, there are confirmed cases in at least 70 countries. Since the outbreak began late last year, the virus has infected more than 92,000 people and led to more than 3,100 deaths.
A lobbying group for big banks in the United States came under fire Tuesday from financial industry experts for pressuring federal officials to push through long-sought regulatory rollbacks in response to the worldwide economic concerns sparked by the global coronavirus outbreak.
On Sunday, Bank Policy Institute (BPI) chief executive Greg Baer, head of research Francisco Covas, and chief economist Bill Nelson published a post on the group's website entitled "Actions the Fed Could Take in Response to COVID-19." The BPI is a lobbying group whose members include Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.
While the trio of BPI leaders presented the suggestions as steps that the Federal Reserve could take "to allow banks to continue providing credit to businesses and households and liquidity to financial markets," financial industry experts "lambasted" the big bank group's requests as "opportunistic and unnecessary," according to the Washington Post.
As the Post reported Tuesday:
The recommendations are "transparently opportunistic," said Jeremy Kress, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan School of Business. For years, the banking industry resisted calls for higher capital requirements that could have been used as a buffer, or a rainy-day fund, during economic turmoil, he said. Those buffers could have been turned off now to give the industry more flexibility to make loans during the current economic uncertainty, Kress said.
But without those buffers reducing existing capital requirements, which are currently set at minimum levels, the timing could be risky, he said.
"The whole idea of capital requirements and stress-testing banks is to make sure they have enough cushion to absorb losses" during an economic crisis, Kress said.
In a tweet sharing the report, Kress summed up the BPI move as follows: "Surely, the big banks aren't craven enough to use COVID-19 as an excuse to lobby for long-sought regulatory rollbacks, right? Wrong!"
\u201cSurely, the big banks aren't craven enough to use COVID-19 as an excuse to lobby for long-sought regulatory rollbacks, right?\n\nWrong!\n\nI spoke with @washingtonpost about @bankpolicy's "transparently opportunistic" policy proposals.\n\nhttps://t.co/B6a7TdBecf\u201d— Jeremy Kress (@Jeremy Kress) 1583260292
BPI's recommendations for the Fed include cutting reserve requirements and relaxing "stress tests" that force banks to show they can survive an economic crisis.
Graham Steele, the director of the Corporations and Society Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business, tweeted that Kress was "100% correct" in characterizing the big banks' behavior as opportunistic.
"The banking industry's hammer is deregulation, and everything--from economic booms to recessions--looks like a nail," said Steele. "In fact, well capitalized banks are better able to lend throughout the business cycle."
Another financial expert suggested to the Post that the group's proposals were too extreme:
Deregulation has already gone too far, and the coronavirus could pose unique challenges to the financial system that are still unclear, said Larry White, a professor at New York University School of Business. As the virus spreads some people may not be able to work, shop and travel, he said, and "that is a problem for businesses because at the end of the day they won't be able to sell stuff."
"But I am not sure that is a good argument for, 'Oh, we need to do something about liquidity.' That is overreach by BPI," White said.
The Post report provoked criticism of BPI and alarm over the group's tactics.
Economist Betsey Stevenson, an associate professor at the University of Michigan Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy who served on the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration, called the Post's report "absolutely terrifying."
Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, offered a summary of BPI's recommendations on Twitter:
\u201cBig banks\u2019 solution to coronavirus: allow bank gambling, reduce capital, make seat belts optional, end speed limits. https://t.co/Bwsd5I5ABP\u201d— Bartlett Naylor (@Bartlett Naylor) 1583260951
The Fed on Tuesday made an emergency cut of half a percentage point to the benchmark U.S. interest rate. "The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong," Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told reporters, according to CNBC. However, he added, "the spread of the coronavirus has brought new challenges and risks."
While mainland China has been hit hardest by COVID-19, there are confirmed cases in at least 70 countries. Since the outbreak began late last year, the virus has infected more than 92,000 people and led to more than 3,100 deaths.
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.