Few like Blanche Lincoln's derivatives proposal
Blanche Lincoln's derivatives proposal was expected to be a weak compromise that would water down the bill and arouse progressive opposition. Bill Halter, her opponent in the Democratic primary, was previewing his attack on the issue before Lincoln had even released her language.
But Lincoln's actual release shocked everyone. It was strong in all the traditional ways, running most all derivatives through clearinghouses and exchanges and making the exemption for legitimate hedgers very, very tight. (For more background on regulating derivatives, head here.) But it also included something no one had expected: a proposal to split derivatives-trading off from banks by denying institutions that traded derivatives access to the Federal Reserve's cheap money.
This sounded good to a lot of people. It seemed to fit the Glass-Steagall (which split investment banks from commercial banks) or Volcker rule (which stops banks from making speculative trades to pad profits using the federally insured deposits of their customers) mold by driving risky behavior out of the primary banking market. But though the idea sounds good, it's hard to find too many people who think it is good.
The administration, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and even the FDIC are lockstep against it. Note the FDIC's involvement there: Under Sheila Bair, the FDIC has been pushing for stronger protections, not weaker ones, so she has a lot of credibility on these matters. And she's saying that the change would make the system riskier, not safer. "If all derivatives market-making activities were moved outside of bank holding companies," she wrote in a letter to lawmakers, "most of the activity would no doubt continue, but in less regulated and more highly leveraged venues. Even pushing the activity into a bank holding company affiliate would reduce the amount and quality of capital required to be held against this activity."
In my interviews, I've heard similar concerns from a range of sources. Another consistent theme is that the interim period between passing this law and having a functioning derivatives-market could be a lot messier than people think, with real economic consequences.
That isn't to say that no one supports the idea: Michael Greenberger, who was Brooksley Born's lieutenant when she tried to look at regulating the derivatives market in the '90s, thinks the idea makes sense. So do some others. But in general, reactions have been negative, even from the people who would like to support strong derivatives-legislation. But some of these critiques are remaining quiet because, first, some people think this is a useful place to concentrate fire so that the important derivatives-regulations emerge unscathed, and second, because the politics of being tough on derivatives are pretty good right now, and third, because people feel that Lincoln has unexpectedly come to the rescue of the derivatives-regulation cause and no one wants to alienate such an unexpected and useful ally.
May 3, 2010; 9:17 AM ET
Categories: Financial Regulation
Save & Share: Previous: Wonkbook: Oil spill worsens; Greece gets bailed out; Sheila Bair vs. Blanche Lincoln
Next: The economic consequences of the oil disaster
Posted by: jduptonma | May 3, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: freeholder1 | May 3, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: Jasper999 | May 3, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: CharlieWilliams | May 3, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Bankster | May 3, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.