RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeVolcker Rule Gains Support of Former Treasury Secretaries
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 22nd, 2010 3:59 PM |
Score major points for former Fed Chair Paul Volcker in his pursuit to restructure Wall Street. How so?
A letter in this morning’s Wall Street Journal from five former Treasury Secretaries endorses Volcker’s proposal to limit proprietary trading activities in our largest banks. The letter reads,
We who have served as secretary of the Treasury in both Republican and Democratic administrations write in support of the proposed legislation to prohibit certain proprietary activities of commercial banking organizations—the so-called Volcker rule, as part of needed financial reform (“It’s Time for Financial Reform Plan C,” by Alan Blinder, op-ed, Feb. 16).
The principle can be simply stated. Banks benefiting from public support by means of access to the Federal Reserve and FDIC insurance should not engage in essentially speculative activity unrelated to essential bank services. (more…)
Sheila Bair Trumps Tim Geithner
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 29th, 2009 9:52 AM |
FDIC Head Sheila Bair
“Too big to fail.”
Do you think the American public is sufficiently sickened by that phrase? No doubt.
How will our ‘wizards in Washington’ handle this monstrous issue going forward? Is there any doubt that the industry itself should be held accountable to provide the necessary capital to unwind firms deemed ‘too big to fail?’ Of course not. However, the execution of that policy is where the rubber meets the road and where we learn who in Washington is truly working for the American public and who is working for the financial industry. How so? Let’s navigate. (more…)
Mary Schapiro Has Some ‘Splainin To Do…
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 8th, 2009 4:03 PM |
Mary Schapiro
Big money makes for a very strange bedfellow. Is FINRA sleeping well these days? A pending lawsuit against FINRA would like to pull back the covers and check to see if the money in the FINRA mattress was allocated appropriately. Let’s enter the sitting room and take a peek into this corner of the FINRA household.
In the process of consolidating the NASD with NYSE Regulation to form FINRA, the NASD allocated capital proceeds to its member firms. This capital was generated via the initial public offering of the Nasdaq. Did the NASD, now known as FINRA, significantly underallocate capital proceeds to its member firms? This alleged underallocation, known as being ‘picked off’ on Wall Street, is the basis for a lawsuit brought by two FINRA member firms, Benchmark and Standard Investment Chartered.
Why am I concerned about the arcane inner workings and legal issues of a Wall Street self-regulatory organization? For the very same reason that I’m concerned about that regulator’s internal investment portfolio activities. Transparency or the lack thereof and the resulting confidence or lack thereof that the American public has in our entire financial regulatory system. Those goals strike me as worthy especially in light of the systemic risks embedded in an array of organizations which this regulator was charged to oversee. Yes, a large amount of exposure and transparency is badly needed at this point in our economic history. Against this backdrop, let’s navigate and see what we can learn about this lawsuit.
The law firms of Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca along with Greenfield and Goodman are representing the plaintiffs. From the former’s website we learn:
Along with our co-counsel Greenfield & Goodman, LLC, we currently represent members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) (formerly known as the National Association of Securities Dealers or “NASD”) in United States District Court and Court of Appeals litigation. The complaints, which are based on state law, allege that defendants, among other things, obtained the NASD members’ vote in support of the consolidation of NASD and NYSE Regulation through an inaccurate and deceptive proxy statement and solicitation process. (LD’s highlight) At issue in the suit is whether NASD could have distributed to its members a larger share of the approximately $1.5 billion of NASD members’ equity. As members will recall, NASD repeatedly asserted that the IRS imposed a $35,000 “hard cap” on what the NASD could pay its members.
Wow. With a $1.5 billion pie, we are talking big money. In light of that, a charge labeled as ‘inaccurate and deceptive proxy statement and solicitation process’ is aggressive especially for an industry’s regulatory organization. Whatever happened to embracing accuracy and clarity? Let’s continue.
Some documents from the litigation that shed light on the truth of these statements are now public. However, FINRA has insisted that the key fact – the amount the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) told NASD it could distribute – remain secret, that is, under seal.
Secret? Under seal? Those terms aren’t synonymous with transparent. I thought under the ‘change’ being promoted by the Obama administration transparency would be embraced. What this looks like is more ‘business as usual’ on Wall Street. Navigating further we learn,
>The IRS did not limit the payment to member firms to $35,000 as NASD and its officials insisted.
>The IRS did not issue a formal ruling on the payment to members until March 13, 2007 – approximately two months after the member vote on the bylaws occurred.November 21, 2006.
>NASD Board Minutes demonstrate that the NASD Board discussed the $35,000 limit stating, “regardless of the amount agreed upon, it was paramount that the figure not be subject to negotiation.”
At this juncture, if I could be so bold as to steal a line from Ricky Ricardo in engaging Lucy, I would say to Mary Schapiro who headed FINRA, “you got some ‘splainin to do.”
For any legal beagles and overachievers in the audience, I am happy to submit the following legal documents pertaining to this case:
Communications between NASD and the IRS
Communications Between NASD and NYSE
Rest assured, I will be monitoring developments in this case closely.
LD
FDIC . . . For Doing It Correctly
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 19th, 2009 2:41 PM |
Sense on Cents is very judicious in selecting our Economic All-Stars (highlighted in the left sidebar). These individuals continually display a level of professionalism, maturity, consistency, and integrity which are not commonly found in our financial or political spectrum. I deeply appreciate their insights and perspectives and enjoy sharing them with our audience at Sense on Cents and No Quarter USA.
I thank Susan and Andy for tipping me off to remarks made earlier today in which Sheila Bair Says “Too Big to Fail” Strategy for Financial Institutions Must End. The administration and other political pundits are trying to make the case that the Federal Reserve should serve as the systemic risk regulator. In my opinion, Sheila Bair should occupy that role. There is a major political battle developing over this turf. Make no mistake that how this battle plays out will have deep and longstanding implications for our financial system as a whole and for individual consumers. (more…)
