Issue of the week: Overhauling financial regulation
Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd are preparing legislation that would create a government agency tasked with regulating banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and other financial firms.
While the nation is focused on congressional Democrats’ attempt to take over the health-care industry, said Investor’s Business Daily in an editorial, two New England liberals are readying legislation “that would squeeze the life from the whole economy.” Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the Democrats’ point men for financial regulation, hope to create “an über-regulatory body” that would regulate banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and any other financial firm deemed to be “systemically critical” and therefore “too big to fail.” This “monster” of an agency would have final say over the fate of troubled firms and could even order healthy companies to exit businesses deemed too risky. But “with politics comes favoritism,” and bailouts and preferences will inevitably go to favored firms. Such far-reaching regulation would be sure to “breed corruption, loopholes, lobbying, and the very kind of perverse incentives and distortions in the market” that led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s backing $1 trillion in bad loans.
If only the Democratic plans were that ambitious, said Mike Konczal in The Nation. On the contrary, the regulatory agency proposed by Frank and Dodd wouldn’t be strong enough to stop tottering financial firms from threatening the entire system. To be sure, Democrats want to create a mechanism through which “failures are cleaned up in an orderly and nondisruptive fashion.” But nothing in the plans would stop a financial firm from becoming so big and complex in the first place that its failure would set off a cascade of failures at other firms. Nor do the proposals offer any way to head off a failure except through a bailout—at taxpayers’ expense.
Too bad the Democrats didn’t heed Paul Volcker’s advice, said Bill Fleckenstein in Moneycentral.com, MSN’s financial website. The former Federal Reserve chairman has analyzed the financial crisis with “a large dose of common sense” and reached the conclusion that the meltdown could have been averted if we had stuck with the banking system that “worked for 60-odd years before it was dismantled in 1999.” Under the old system, banks were restricted to taking deposits and making loans. In return, the federal government insured their deposits and stepped in to rescue them if they were about to fail. Firms that wanted to take bigger risks by trading securities and derivatives were free to do so, but if their speculation blew up in their faces, the government wouldn’t help them. If Democrats really wanted to safeguard the financial system, they’d restore the wall between banking and trading.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
If only it were that simple, said Steve Goldstein in Marketwatch.com. Commercial banks like Washington Mutual and Wachovia didn’t go bust because they were speculating in securities. They failed at mortgage lending, their bread-and-butter business. By the same token, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns “were precisely the kind of investment banking–only institutions” that Volcker now champions. That didn’t prevent their failures from endangering the entire financial system. By all means, let’s try to ensure that institutions that fail don’t “take others down with them.” But “putting up arbitrary barriers” around banking activities won’t accomplish that.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Why ghost guns are so easy to make — and so dangerous
The Explainer Untraceable, DIY firearms are a growing public health and safety hazard
By David Faris Published
-
The Week contest: Swift stimulus
Puzzles and Quizzes
By The Week US Published
-
'It's hard to resist a sweet deal on a good car'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Issue of the week: Raising the minimum wage
feature How will raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour affect the economy?
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Breaking up the big banks
feature There’s a growing realization that we need to end the taxpayer guarantees that Dodd-Frank left in place.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: The death of daily deals?
feature This is a “winter of discontent” for daily deal companies Groupon and LivingSocial.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: CEOs tackle the deficit
feature America’s top business leaders sent Congress an open letter urging immediate action on the $16 trillion national debt.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Does Wall Street need speed limits?
feature High-frequency trading now accounts for as much as 70 percent of market volume.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Victory for a bank watchdog
feature A New York state financial regulator accused a London-based bank of laundering $250 billion for Iran.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: A former megabanker’s conversion
feature Sanford Weill, the architect of the modern megabank, now favors the end of too-big-to-fail banks.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Issue of the week: Libor scandal rocks banking
feature The interest rate scandal is just beginning and may soon engulf at least a dozen other major banks.
By The Week Staff Last updated