Bankers Welcome Regulation, But Skeptical Of Plans For Regulatory Agency

By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service

On Wednesday, a panel of banking experts expressed reservations over certain aspects of the regulatory reform proposals that the Obama administration has put forth.

In a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, representatives from the financial services industry criticized plans to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

In recent weeks, Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank (D-N.J.) cited a “flood of complaints” regarding practices in the financial industry. Rather than create laws to deal with each complaint, Frank has argued that conflict could be mitigated by a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Steve Bartlett, President and CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable, acknowledged that the “status quo is unacceptable,” and argued that regulation reform “should be comprehensive, should be systemic, and should be quite large in terms of its scope." He criticized the current system of regulation, which he said featured “hundreds of different agencies who regulate the same companies with the same activities in totally different ways based on different statutes, different standards.”

Bartlett nonetheless emphasized that he and his company “strongly oppose” the creation of a new agency, and recommended that Congress instead pass legislation enacting “strong national consumer protection standards.”

Steven Zeisel, Senior Counsel at the Consumer Bankers Association, said that he supported regulatory reform as well, but expressed reservations about the CFPA. He said that the legislation could require retail banks in different states to follow many different laws, which could make lending more complex, and could potentially the limit the availability of credit while raising costs for the consumer. He also said that the legislation will require banks “to offer products designed entirely by the federal government,” which could stifle innovation.

Rep. Scott Garrett (D-N.J.) said, “I don’t think Americans want government bureaucrats deciding if they are smart enough, sophisticated enough to take out a line of credit at the local retailer, or policing whether the credit cards that they choose offer reward points or not. When you come down to it, having choices is part of being an American.”

Rep. Maxine Walters (D-Calif.) harshly criticized the arguments of the panel. She said that they had “no real support for a consumer finance agency to protect consumers from these exotic products that worry us so much.” “You will work your magic with your influence in the Congress of the United States to keep any real strong legislation from ever coming out of here,” she continued. She also disputed the claim that the CFPA would raise consumer costs.

“I am just dumbfounded that we have before us representatives of the overall industry here today who do not appear to understand we have a crisis,” she said.

Need To Close the Gaps In Resolution Regimes

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

“From the outset I have argued that our financial system is not merely in need of ‘reform,’ but of ‘modernization,’” said Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

At the hearing, which discussed “Enhancing Investor Protection and the Regulation of Securities Markets,” Senator Dodd asked the Chairman of the SEC Mary Schapiro, “Were you consulted by the Treasury and the Fed? What role do you think the SEC should play in this resolution mechanism, given the oversight and regulatory responsibilities?”

Senator Dodd also asked Ms. Schapiro to “comment on the reports of the regulatory changes that Secretary Geithner has mentioned this morning.”

Ms. Schapiro responded, “generally there was consultation.”

Ms Schapiro added, “We clearly have gaps in our resolution regime for large financial institutions....I fully support the concept of closing the gap in resolution regime so that we have a more coherent approach.”

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, “We all believe people should be rewarded for good performance, that’s not the problem, but what we’ve seen in many instances that has enraged Americans is a heads-eye wind tail you lose system. In which executives are rewarded for flashing the pan short term gains, or even worse, rewarded richly when the company does poorly and the shareholders have been hammered.”

Central counterparty not the “silver bullet” for OTC credit derivatives market

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing on “Reducing Risks and Improving Oversight in the Over-The-Counter (OTC) Credit Derivatives Market.” Chairman Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Ranking Member Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) oversaw the hearing. Both senators agreed that the OTC credit derivatives market poses many risks to different sectors of the U.S. economy, including the financial system. Reed said that regulators have been coordinating efforts since 2002 to reduce these risks, but have not made enough progress and have become “too complacent” in their efforts.

Patrick Parkinson, the Deputy Director of the Federal Reserve Board’s Division of Research and Statistics, said that the use of credit derivatives entails risks as well as benefits. He explained that a central counterparty (CCP) is an entity that offers to interpose itself between counterparties to financial contracts, becoming the buyer to the seller and the seller to the buyer. Parkinson said that a CCP has the potential to reduce counterparty risks to OTC derivatives market participants and risk to the financial system by achieving multilateral netting of trades and by imposing “more-robust” risk controls on market participants. Parkinson also said that supervisors and other policymakers should encourage the introduction and use of well-designed CCP clearing services for credit derivatives and should encourage greater standardization of contracts, which would facilitate more trading on exchanges.

James Overdahl, the Senior Economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission, explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s efforts to encourage sound risk management practice and enhance the infrastructure in the OTC credit derivatives market. Overdahl said that establishing a CCP for credit default swaps is an important step in reducing systemic risk and achieving greater operational efficiency in the market. However, Overdahl also said that while it provides a number of potential benefits, a CCP for credit derivatives or any OTC derivatives contracts is subject o substantial challenges and should not be viewed as a “silver bullet.”

Committee introduces legislation on credit card regulation at press conference

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, introduced legislation to improve credit card billing, marketing and disclosure regulations and practices today at a press conference. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (C.A.R.D.), is set to strengthen industry regulation and supervision, prevent increases in interest rates and terms, and prohibit exorbitant and unnecessary rates and fees, among other things.

Upon becoming chairman, Dodd put credit card companies “on notice” in 2007 and with this legislation is hoping to create “fairness and transparency for consumers.” Last year 700 million credit cards were given out that allocated about $9,000 of debt per household, due to, as Dodd said,“mostly excessive fees and exorbitant interest rates.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), at the press conference in support of Dodd’s legislation, noted “With all the economic hardships facing folks today, from falling home prices to rising gasoline and food costs, it is more important than ever for Congress to act now to stop credit card abuses and protect American families from unfair credit cared practices.”

Fed called to answer for bailout of Bear Stearns

Why did you bail out Bear Stearns? It was the resounding question heard over and over in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on "Turmoil in U.S. Credit Markets: Examining the Recent Actions of Federal Financial Regulators." Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, United States Treasury Under Secretary Robert Steel, and President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Timothy F. Geithner, all attempted to answer that question to Congress.

In his opening statement, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), said the stunning fall of Bear Stearns was matched only by the sweeping response to its collapse put together by the New York Fed and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which, with the support of Treasury, "exercised powers in some instances that had not been used since the Great Depression." However, he said, people on 'Main Street' are struggling to pay their mortgages, and so was the rescue of Bear Stearns justified to prevent a systemic collapse of financial markets, or was it a $30 billion taxpayer bailout for a firm on Wall Street?

Yes, but how big do you have to be, to be too big to fail? Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) posed that question in his opening statement. Why, exactly, was it necessary to stop the invisible hand of the market? That is Socialism, he said, adding that he was very troubled by the failure of Bear Stearns. A big question, he said, was who let our financial system become so fragile?

Chairman Bernanke said the that pressures in the short-term bank funding markets have increased, and many lenders have been reluctant to provide credit to counterparties, especially leveraged investors, and they have increased the amount of collateral they required to back short-term security financing agreements. Credit availability is restricted, and some key securitization markets (including those for nonconforming mortgages) continue to function poorly if at all.

Bernanke, nearly at the end of his prepared statement, arrived to the explanation as to why they had assisted Bear Stearns. The news that Bear Stearns would have to file for bankruptcy, he said, raised difficult questions of public policy. "Normally, the market sorts out which companies survive and which fail, and that is as it should be. However, the issues raised here extended well beyond the fate of one company." He said that our financial system is extremely complex and interconnected, and Bear Stearns participated extensively in a range of "critical markets." The damage caused by a default by Bear Stearns "could have been severe and difficult to contain."

The chaotic unwinding of Bear Stearns could have cast doubt of the financial positions of some of Bear Stearns' thousands of counterparties, Chairman Cox said. But a question remained on whether or not investors were at risk. Despite the run on the bank to which Bear Stearns was subjected, Cox said, its customers were fully protected. At no time during the week of March 10-17th were any of the customers of the Bear Stearns's broker-dealers at risk of losing their cash or their securities.

Under Secretary Steel gave an explanation as to why Bear Stearns was assisted, saying a strong financial system is vitally important for all Americans. When our markets work, he said, people throughout our economy benefit, and when our financial system is under stress all Americans bear the consequences. The focus was more on the strategic concern of the implication of a bankruptcy. The failure of a firm that was connected to so many corners of the market would have caused financial disruptions beyond Wall Street.

The risk has its protections, Geithner said. There is a substantial pool of professionally-managed collateral that was valued at $30 billion, the agreement on the part of JPMorgan Chase to absorb the first $1 billion of any loss that ultimately occurs in connection with this arrangement, and a long-term horizon during which the collateral will be safe-kept.

In the written statement of James Dimon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase, he said they got involved in the matter because the collapse had the potential to cause serious damage to the financial system. They could not, and would not have assumed the risks of acquiring Bear Stearns without the $30 billion facility provided by the Fed, and that the transaction is not without risk for JPMorgan. However, they informed the New York Fed and Treasury that the risks were too great for JPMorgan to buy the entire company on their own. The statement also explains the reason for bailing out Bear Stearns: a Bear Stearns bankruptcy could have touched off a chain reaction of defaults at other major financial institutions, and the consequences could have been disastrous.

The repeated phrase by each and every witness was that the failure of Bear Stearns was a result of a lack of confidence. According to the written statement of Alan Schwartz, President and CEO of the Bear Stearns Companies, even though the firm was adequately capitalized and had a substantial liquidity cushion, "Unfounded rumors and attendant speculation began circulating in the market" that Bear Stearns was in the midst of a liquidity crisis. The unfounded rumors grew into fear and there was a run on the bank.