Around the Web: Volcker Rules - Not!

Until the morning of January 21, 82-year-old former Federal Reserve president Paul Volcker had been a lonely and largely ignored figure among President Obama’s economic advisers.

Volcker seemed to be the only one of Obama’s advisers not under the spell of the “too big to fail banks” and their highly touted innovations.

Volcker was especially vocal about protecting the public from the financial world’s riskier innovations. As he told a financial conference last year, “Riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: ‘If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected.’ ”

It was Volcker who had said that the only financial innovation to benefit consumers in the last 20 years was the ATM card.

But he wasn’t getting much traction with the president and his advisers.

Then the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

In a lurch back toward the populism he had embraced during his campaign, President Obama hastily reached out for Volcker.

During a press conference, the president endorsed something he called the Volcker rule as an essential plank of his financial reform plan. That rule would restrict banks from risky proprietary trades with their own (borrowed) money.

Here’s what the president said:

“Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers.  If financial firms want to trade for profit, that's something they're free to do.  Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy.  But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

For more on proprietary trading and the Volcker rule, read this from Rortybomb’s Mike Konczal and the NYT. For more about why the Volcker rule was a good idea, see this from WSJ’s Dealbreaker.

Obama mentioned the Volcker Rule a couple more times, as did the man who was marshaling financial reform through the House, Rep. Barney Frank.

But neither the president nor anybody else in the Democratic leadership ever mounted a public campaign to make it an essential part of reform. In fact, within a month, the president was already backing off his support of the Volcker rule.

And now, like many other parts of the reform that would have protected consumers and inconvenienced banks, it has been largely gutted.

Bloomberg reports “lobbying by banks and congressmen sympathetic to Wall Street’s views, as well as some administration members in the banks’ defense, trampled the views of Volcker and others who favored a stronger proposal.”

The weaker provisions won’t even go into effect for as many as 12 years.

It would have been one thing for Obama and the Democrats to go down swinging on the Volcker Rule. But they didn’t even put up much of a fight.

If you’re as disappointed as I am with the president’s lack of leadership on this, after he made such a big deal about it, why not let him know?

Around the Web / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 06/30/2010

Bombing Ants in the Sausage Factory

The only aspect of the financial reform legislation that’s truly strong is the level of rhetorical nonsense that both parties have unleashed around it: Democrats and the media exaggerate when they praise it as “the toughest financial overhaul since the Great Depression.”

Not to be outdone, the Republican House minority leader, John Boehner, has weighed in, describing the proposal as a nuclear weapon being used to kill an ant.

Which would make the financial crisis the ant, I guess.

On Tuesday, the nuclear bomb had to go back to the, uh, sausage factory, for some more grinding after Sen. Robert Byrd’s death and the defection of a former Republican reform supporter left the Dems with less than the 60 votes they need to overcome the wall of Republican opposition.

One of the few chinks in that wall had been Sen. Scott Brown. But Brown balked after a $20 billion tax on hedge funds and banks was inserted into the legislation to pay for the costs of modest additional regulation. The Republican senator from Massachusetts said he opposed placing a greater burden on financial institutions and he feared the costs of the tax would be passed on to consumers. So the reform proposal is headed back to the conference committee.

Let’s be clear: overheated and mangled rhetoric aside, the financial reform proposal does nothing to reduce the risk posed by our “too-big to fail” banks or to prevent another crisis. The proposal leaves much of the details to regulators subject to lobbying by the very institutions they’re supposed to oversee.

Now legislators think they’ve found a better bet to fund their reform: you!

According to the New York Times, they’re considering ending the Troubled Asset Relief Program early and diverting about $11 billion in taxpayer funds.

The Times observed this leaves legislators with a couple of awkward choices. “So,” the Times concludes, “the choice becomes a tax that might be passed along to consumers, or a charge directly to American taxpayers.”

Is this the best they can do? I’m increasingly sympathetic to Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who is bucking his president and party, opposing reform because it doesn’t get the job done.

I would suggest that Boehner got it wrong, that the ant[s] are not the financial crisis; they’re the legislators scrambling around serving the banks’ interests when they’re supposed to be serving ours.

But that would give ants a bad name.

Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / TARP - 06/29/2010

Around the Web: Landmark or Pit Stop?

I understand why people feel the need to tout the historical significance of the financial reform package that passed the conference committee. The president needs it politically and those who support him want to give him credit for getting anything at all in the face of the onslaught of bank lobbyists. Lots of folks worked very hard against tremendous odds to get something passed.

But I think a more sober analysis shows that what’s been achieved is pretty modest. It hands over many crucial details to the same regulators who oversaw our financial debacle.

Summing up, Bloomberg reports: “Legislation to overhaul financial regulation will help curb risk-taking and boost capital buffers. What it won’t do is fundamentally reshape Wall Street’s biggest banks or prevent another crisis, analysts said.”

Zach Carter characterizes it as a good first step. The Roosevelt Institute’s Robert Johnson writes: “This first round was not the whole fight. It was the wake-up call and the beginning of the fight. Rest up and get ready. There is so much more to do.”

The question is when we’ll get the chance to take the additional steps that are needed. The public is skeptical that the new rules will prevent another crisis, according to this AP poll. The Big Picture’s Barry Ritholtz grades the various aspects of the reform effort. Overall grade? C-. Top marks go to the new minimum mortgage underwriting standards. But legislators get failing grades for leaving four critical issues on the table: “to big to fail banks,” bank leverage, credit rating agencies and corporate pay.

Ritholtz saves some of his harshest evaluation for the proposal to house the new consumer protection agency inside the Federal Reserve, which he finds “beyond idiotic.”

Around the Web / Executive Pay / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 06/25/2010

Soldiers Lose Out to Yo-Yos

Here’s a snapshot that puts into sharp focus where we are politically this summer:

In a showdown between the U.S. military and the nation’s car dealers over protecting soldiers from predatory lending, the car dealers won.

Even though the commander-in-chief said he wanted the fighting men and women to be shielded by the proposed new consumer protection agency when they went to get a car loan, congressional Democrats Tuesday sided with the car dealers, who would prefer not to face any additional regulation, thank you very much.

After all, they argue, we didn’t cause the financial meltdown, so leave us alone.  But according to the Better Business Bureau, new car dealers rank fifth in complaints about lending practices.  Used car dealers do a little better; they rank seventh.

The military says its soldiers, focused as they should be on other matters, are particularly vulnerable to predatory lending.

Rosemary Shahan, president of a Sacramento-based nonprofit, Consumers For Auto Reliability and Safety, told the Chicago Tribune that auto dealers pack financing contracts with costly items such as extended warranties and insurance to cover loan payments if the vehicle is wrecked.

One of the more obnoxious forms of predatory lending is something called a yoyo loan. The buyer is told they can drive the car off the lot with a deal they can’t refuse – subject to loan approval. Then the dealer calls back and tells the buyer the initial loan wasn’t approved but they can have the vehicle at a higher interest rate.

The car dealers argue that they’re already subject to other forms of regulation. But they also have other means of persuasion: the National Association of Auto Dealers is among the elite top 20 campaign contributors since 1989, according to the Center For Responsive Politics, with more than $25 million in contributions. During 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, the National Automobile Dealers Association and another group that represents foreign-car franchises, the American International Automobile Dealers Association spent almost $3.5 million to lobby on financial reform and other issues, the Center For Public Integrity reported.

Call President Obama and let him know we need him on the front lines in the battle against predatory lending.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 06/22/2010

Around the Web: Tweak Show

Rather than providing a terrifying wakeup call to reshape our financial system, the economic meltdown turned out to be a boon to bank lobbyists.

The fight for financial reform looks like it will be a long war.

Who won the first battle? The too-big-to-fail bankers, who spared no expense in protecting their interests. Now they’re stronger than ever, and the job of regulating them has largely been turned over to the same regulators who failed to protect the country from the recent debacle.

House and Senate conferees are still haggling over the final details. In the latest “compromise” to emerge, Rep. Barney Frank has given up fighting for an independent consumer financial protection agency, agreeing with the Senate proposal to house consumer protection within the Federal Reserve.

It hasn’t helped that the man who was supposed to lead the charge  – President Obama – ­ has largely been missing in action. An independent consumer financial agency was once a linchpin of President Obama’s financial reform package. But it’s gone the way of other provisions that the big banks opposed. The president also once threatened to veto reform if it didn’t contain strong derivatives regulation, now the administration is actually working to undermine it.

One of the most articulate advocates of a stronger overhaul of the financial system isn’t waiting around to see the final bill to declare a verdict. Baseline Scenario’s Simon Johnson declares the reform effort a failure. Rather than joining with a handful of congressman and senators fighting for a more robust overhaul, Johnson concludes that the White House “punted, repeatedly, and elected instead for a veneer of superficial tweaking.”

Now the focus of financial industry lobbying will shift to the regulators, who will have the task of writing the new rules the administration and Congress balked at providing. The conference committee is televising its proceedings. It’s not a pretty picture, as when Texas Republican congressman Jeb Hensarling argued to gut some controls on bankers’ compensation out of concern that the federal government would be setting bank tellers’ pay.

If you have a strong stomach, you can view the remaining sessions here. The Democrats want the negotiations wrapped up by July 4.

Around the Web / Martin Column - 06/21/2010

Listening to Our History

Driving through the west, headed towards home from a cross-country road trip with my wife Stacie and dog Billie, there's endless hours on the highway, no Internet and not much radio except for hard-right talk.

Hearing the voices passing through the desert states is a grim reminder of the forces we're up against, who now characterize themselves as the real "community organizers," who represent the real people.

It’s not just the right wing. Lots of people have adopted the timid trickle-down theories embodied by our political leadership: "Don't get too tough on BP or they’ll take away our jobs. Don't cross Wall Street, we need to keep the market stable."

We’re in Winslow, Arizona, wondering whether a boycott will worsen the dire poverty we see in front of us. It’s easier and more politically expedient to make immigrants the scapegoats for lack of jobs and economic uncertainty than it is to question a system that is seriously out of whack, that offers the biggest rewards to those who gamble on our collective losses without risking their own wealth.

That's what a big chunk of the financial system like hedge funds and derivatives has become. Cynical and bloodthirsty, producing nothing except profits for the few. And the gesture toward financial reform winding its way through congressional conference committee does little to change that.

I understand the fears of friends and family that the money they have saved and invested over the years will be lost if we challenge Wall Street and the robber barons of our time. The financial industry has shown that if it doesn’t get what it wants it is capable of wrecking our economy and causing great suffering for others. But this kind of blackmail undermines democracy. We deserve a financial system that provides both transparency and financial security.

Traveling through the country, along roads adjacent to rail lines and mile-long freight trains, I kept thinking about our nation's history and those rare moments of courageous leadership like Teddy Roosevelt tackling the railroad trusts, and FDR and his team creating the New Deal to save the financial system from its own excesses. And the creation of the GI Bill, which was designed to bolster possibilities for people who risked their lives for our country, and had played a huge part in the creation of a vital middle class. These were moments when audacious politics met pragmatic problem-solving.

I attended the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City earlier this month. The topic of the wide-ranging conference was “Can the Internet Save Politics?”

One of the most inspiring speakers was Daniel Ellsberg. Amid all the excitement over the possibilities for political activism and engagement with new social media, Ellsberg reminded us that one of the most important ingredients is the same as it always was: moral courage.

Ellsberg was the Pentagon military analyst who leaked a secret Defense Department account of the disgraceful political decisions that led the country into the Vietnam War and its outcome. Plenty of people on the inside knew what was happening in Vietnam, Ellsberg said, but they had kids to put through college and mortgages to pay. They were not about to step outside the system and jeopardize their careers.

Not everybody has the nerve or inside information to be a whistleblower like Ellsberg. But we can demand a financial and economic system where we don’t have to sacrifice our financial security to those who gamble against our futures.

We can demand that our president delivers on his campaign promise of real change. There can be no real change without confronting corporate power over our government and political system. We are as controlled today by the financial and oil industries as we were by the railroad barons when Teddy Roosevelt took them on. TR said one should speak softly and carry a big stick. President Obama has been doing the opposite. We need to demand that Barack Obama follow TR’s suggestion.

Action / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 06/20/2010

Consumer Protection, Fed Style

One of the big unsettled issues for the congressional conference committee considering financial reform is whether to create an independent financial consumer protection agency.

That’s what the House bill does. The argument for an independent agency is that consumers need a strong advocate in the financial marketplace.

The Senate decided that an independent consumer financial watchdog wasn’t needed, and that the consumer financial protector should live in, of all places, the Federal Reserve. After all, the Fed already has responsibilities to “implement major laws concerning consumer credit.” We all know how well that worked out.

The problem is that the Fed has functioned as a protector of the big banks, never more so than since the big bank bailout and in the battle over financial reform.

Despite promises for greater transparency, the Fed has repeatedly resisted attempts to get it to disclose all the favors it’s done for financial institutions since the bailout. If the Fed had put up half the fight against bank secrecy that it’s waged on behalf of bank secrets, consumers would never have been subjected to all those lousy subprime loans.

It is telling that no actual consumers or consumer organizations actually think that housing consumer protection inside the Fed is a good idea. Who does? The big banks and the Fed.

For those who still need convincing that a Fed-housed consumer protection agency is a bad idea, the Fed has provided a more recent example of what it means by consumer protection.

Last month it unveiled a database that’s supposed to help people choose the most appropriate credit card.

The database might be useful to professional researchers but provides little that would be of use to ordinary consumers. It presents the credit card statements by company but provides no other search functions, such as comparing credit cards by interest rates or fees.

Some of the presentation suggests that the information was dumped onto the Fed’s website without much thought. Bill Allison, who is editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that digitizes government data and creates online tools to make it accessible to readers, said the following:

“I don't think there's anything wrong with posting it, but this is obviously not data you can search,” Allison told Bailout Sleuth.

He also pointed out that some of the agreements themselves aren't particularly informative. He cited the entry for Barclays Bank Delaware, which notes that the bank may assess fees for late payments and returned checks. “The current amounts of such Account Fees are stated in the Supplement,” the agreement reads.

But that supplement is not contained in the Fed's database. The Fed promises to go back and refine its database. But if they’re not devoting the resources to get this right now, with their ability to protect consumers under the microscope, do you really expect they’ll do better later?

An independent consumer protector is not simply some technicality to be bargained away. We’ve learned from the bubble and its aftermath that consumers need all the help they can get. Contact your congressperson and tell them you’re still paying attention to the reform fight. Check out your congressperson and see if they’re on the conference committee. If they are, your voice is especially important. While you’re at it, contact the president and remind him we won’t settle for any more watering down of financial reform.

Action / Federal Reserve / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 06/02/2010