RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeWall Street Supercop
Posted by Larry Doyle on July 24th, 2009 9:55 AM |
Regulating Wall Street is not a job for mere mortals. This is a job for Supercop!!
Pardon my lighthearted manner to a truly serious issue, but certain topics just lend themselves to breaking out my Irish wit and this is one of them.
Recall that under President Obama’s initial plans to revamp the financial regulatory structure, the Federal Reserve was to be designated as the uber-regulator or Supercop for Wall Street. Well, the best laid plans do not necessarily play out that way, as the Associated Press reports SEC, FDIC Heads Want New Council to Be Supercop:
Key regulators on Thursday broke with the Obama administration, reaffirming their belief that some new powers to monitor big institutions against financial threats should go to an interagency council, not the Federal Reserve.
Some Republican lawmakers also continued to warn against endowing the Fed with new powers in an overhauled system as Congress slogs through a complex deliberation that could reshape the financial landscape in the wake of a historic crisis.
Under the administration’s financial overhaul proposal, the central bank as “systemic risk regulator” would be able to duplicate and even overrule other regulators.
But Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., stressed to the Senate Banking Committee that crucial role should be played by the new stability oversight council. The body would include the Treasury Department, the Fed, and the two independent agencies headed by Bair and Schapiro.
I am not necessarily for more government bureaucracy and I hope this supercop council is not merely a layer of red tape. I would be very concerned if the Federal Reserve were designated as the sole supercop. Why? I think it would likely hinder the Fed’s ability to be viewed as totally independent. I already believe the Fed has a credibility issue on that front. Being designated as Wall Street’s supercop would only further jeopardize the Fed’s claim of independence.
Make no mistake about it, though, the efficacy of a proposed supercop is ultimately a question of transparency and integrity. I addressed these points in writing “Future Financial Regulation: Not A Question of Sufficiency, But of Transparency and Integrity.”
I am heartened by the fact that the FDIC under Sheila Bair would be able to play a prominent role in this supercop council. I hold Ms. Bair in high regard. As the AP reports:
Bair testified that an interagency council with strong and extensive authorities “will provide for an appropriate system of checks and balances.” A council “with real teeth … would be highly effective,” Bair said. It would be “tremendous” power to invest in a sole regulator, she said.
Bair also endorsed the proposed creation under the Obama plan of a consumer finance protection agency to oversee areas such as mortgages and credit cards — an idea fiercely opposed by the financial industry.
How will this play out? Sense on Cents will be monitoring developments. Regulating Wall Street is not a job for mere mortals. This is a job for Supercop!!
LD
Related Commentary
Don’t Call the Fed Independent; June 17, 2009
Where Is Finra’s 2008 Annual Report?
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 8th, 2009 10:33 AM |
Finra released its 2007 Annual Report in mid-April 2008. Here it is June 8, 2009 and Finra has yet to release its 2008 Annual Report. What is going on? Aside from speculating, I called Finra this morning to inquire.
A source from within Finra’s Media Source division informed me to call back in a month. I questioned how and why in a period of economic and market dislocation, and with a heightened sensitivity on increased regulatory transparency, that Finra is being less transparent. I received a healthy dose of red tape and little direction. I have a call into Finra spokesman Herb Perone. That said, June 8, 2009 and no Annual Report. “Call back in a month.”
Why do I want to review Finra’s 2008 Annual Report? I know that fines and sanctions collected by Finra diminished by approximately 30% over the last year. The WSJ highlighted that information and I expounded upon it in writing, How Courageous is Mary Schapiro? My specific area of interest is a review of Finra’s investments within their own internal portfolio.
Recall that from their investment portfolio, Finra sold $647 million (position as of year end 2006) of Auction Rate Securities in Spring 2007. What did Finra do with their investments in hedge funds, fund of funds, private equity, common equities, and fixed income? Would Finra be so forthcoming as to provide insight as to why they needed to raise all that cash from the Auction Rate Securities liquidation?
Our markets and economy are screaming for increased transparency and regulation in an attempt to reinstill a measure of investor confidence.
Finra is prominently situated as a Wall Street regulatory body. Finra is currently being less transparent than a year ago. Why? Ms. Schapiro at the SEC and Richard Ketchum, new head of Finra, can TALK all they want about increased transparency and stiffer regulations. Talk is cheap. Information is everything.
“Call back in a month…” does NOT get it done.
LD
Uncle Sam’s Regulatory Double Standard
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 7th, 2009 5:24 PM |
As I have referenced previously, Jonathan Weil of Bloomberg truly distinguishes himself as the finest commentator within the world of financial journalism. Weil takes on the financial regulatory authorities for their selective enforcements. Today he reports, Lehman Bosses Walk, While Small Fry Walk Plank. Why after 2 years haven’t senior executives from mortgage origination firms (Countrywide, Ameriquest, New Century, Long Beach), quasi-government agencies (Freddie and Fannie), commercial and investment banks, and credit rating agencies been more thoroughly investigated, if not arrested and prosecuted?
Is there any doubt these firms and executives effectively purchased their own protection? After writing “How Wall Street Bought Washington,” it became exceedingly clear that money from Wall Street bought protection for the business units and the individuals. It is not likely that Uncle Sam will target executives at firms holding government money. Additionally, if Uncle Sam targets execs at failed firms, those execs would be likely to finger others.
As Uncle Sam is now both investor and regulator in the markets, how do market participants compel him to be an honest broker on both fronts? As Weil writes, quoting former SEC head Chris Cox:
“From the standpoint of the SEC, the most obvious problem with breaking down the arm’s-length relationship between government, as the regulator, and business, as the regulated, is that it threatens to undermine our enforcement and regulatory regime,” Cox said in a Dec. 4 speech.
“When the government becomes both referee and player, the game changes rather dramatically for every other participant. Rules that might be rigorously applied to private-sector competitors will not necessarily be applied in the same way to the sovereign who makes the rules.”
Haven’t we already seen this play? Why is it that public confidence in the markets and those overseeing them is so low? When the security patrol in the casino also has LOTS of chips on the table, how do we know the dealer isn’t also in on the action? If so, is it any wonder why the unsavory activities of other “boys in the club” who have run out of chips aren’t being prosecuted?
I commend Weil for raising this topic. I can only hope other media outlets will pressure the regulators to level the playing field.
LD
