Tag Archives: Sheila Bair

Whatever It Is, They’re Against It

17 Saturday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), speaking for all 41 Senate Republicans on the prospects for reforming and regulating the financial system:

That was after Susan Collins (R-ME) became the 41st signature on McConnell’s letter to Harry Reid which reads:

“We are united in our opposition to the partisan legislation reported by the Senate Banking Committee. As currently constructed, this bill allows for endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and community banks.”

All words straight out of a Frank Luntz memo, telling Republicans how to maintain the status quo while sounding like they are in favor of reform. In other words, just repeat the Luntz-inspired tactics from the health care debate, with “endless taxpayer bailouts” replacing “death panels” as the lie du jour. And a lie is exactly what it is. What will guarantee “endless taxpayer bailouts” is doing nothing. The proposed reform calls for applying the same process to the “too big to fail” institutions that the FDIC uses every day for dealing with banks that become insolvent.

Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, and whose word I’ll take over McConnell’s 8 days a week, said as much in an interview published at American Banker on Thursday:

Would this bill perpetuate bailouts?
SHEILA BAIR: The status quo is bailouts. That’s what we have now. If you don’t do anything, you are going to keep having bailouts.

But does this bill stop them from happening?
BAIR: It makes them impossible and it should. We worked really hard to squeeze bailout language out of this bill. The construct is you can’t bail out an individual institution – you just can’t do it.

If this had been law prior to 2008, would we have seen the bailouts that took place?
BAIR: No. You could not do an AIG, Bear Stearns, or any of that…This bill would only allow system-wide liquidity support which could not be targeted at an individual firm. You can’t do capital investments at all, period. It’s only liquidity support. No more capital investments. That’s banned under all circumstances.

Do you see any way left for the government to bail out a financial institution?
BAIR: No, and that’s the whole idea. It was too easy for institutions to come and ask for help. They aren’t going to do that. This gives us a response: “Fine, we will take all these essential services and put them in a bridge bank. We will keep them running while your shareholders and debtors take all your losses. And oh, by the way, we are getting rid of your board and you, too.”

Here’s all you need to know about the dishonesty of Senate Republicans. One provision of the bill is for a $50 billion fund to dismantle the “too big to fail” banks. The fund is made up entirely of money which comes from the big banks, not one thin dime from the taxpayers. Republicans want this provision removed. But even if it goes, will they support the remainder of the legislation? I think you can guess the answer:

“McConnell suggested it wouldn’t be enough to satisfy Republicans.

“I appreciate the Obama administrations recognition of the need to substantively improve this bill,” McConnell said. “And I hope we can work with them to close the remaining bailout loopholes that put American taxpayers on the hook for financial institutions that become too big to fail.”

Oh by the way, how did the $50 billion get into the legislation to begin with? It was the result of negotiations between Banking Committee members Mark Warner (D-VA) and Bob Corker (R-TN). Needless to say, Corker now opposes the fund he negotiated to include.

Whatever it is, they’re against it.

Too Big To Fail is Too Big–Break ‘Em Up

30 Tuesday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The chorus of those calling for breaking up the big banks is growing larger and louder by the day. Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE) in a speech on the floor of the Senate last Friday:

“These mega-banks are too big to manage, too big to regulate, too big to fail and too interconnected to resolve when the next crisis hits.  We must break up these banks and separate again those commercial banking activities that are guaranteed by the government from those investment banking activities that are speculative and reflect greater risk.”

Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, March 3:

“A truly effective restructuring of our regulatory regime will have to neutralize what I consider to be the greatest threat to our financial system’s stability—the so-called too-big-to-fail, or TBTF, banks. In the past two decades, the biggest banks have grown significantly bigger. In 1990, the 10 largest U.S. banks had almost 25 percent of the industry’s assets. Their share grew to 44 percent in 2000 and almost 60 percent in 2009.

…Given the danger these institutions pose to spreading debilitating viruses throughout the financial world, my preference is for a more prophylactic approach: an international accord to break up these institutions into ones of more manageable size—more manageable for both the executives of these institutions and their regulatory supervisors.”

Senator Kaufman and Mr. Fisher are just the latest additions to the list that includes former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, FDIC head Sheila Bair, Sen. Cantwell, and Sen. McCain, among many others. Unfortunately, two names not on the list are Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd.

And as if on cue, Citigroup gives us a prime example of why these financial behemoths need to be dissolved, and have what was once the “boring” business of commercial banking–taking deposits and making loans–separated from the risky business in which the banksters love to engage (with OPM of course) and why Wall Street cannot be left to its own devices:

“It appears that the pain of the recession is not deep enough to teach Citigroup Inc. what it needs to learn. The bank..is now readying a new unregulated insurance credit derivative, the CLX…The company is heading back into familiar territory where they’re putting taxpayer money into play on another risky bet. Simply put the instrument will enable it to gamble on future events by issuing complex financial instruments which attempt to quantify risk. This is very similar to the original business that Citigroup was heavily involved with that precipitated their fall from glory.”

Leopards and banksters never change their spots.