When will the Fed start caring about bank regulation?

By Felix Salmon
May 4, 2011
Jesse Eisinger has a great column today on the way in which the Fed is failing to embrace its crucially-important role as America's top bank regulator.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Jesse Eisinger has a great column today on the way in which the Fed is failing to embrace its crucially-important role as America’s top bank regulator. The Fed is “the most powerful banking regulator in the world,” he writes, but doesn’t act that way:

In the years before the financial crisis, the Fed was a miserable failure in that role, a creature of the banks, not a watchdog…

Under the giant Dodd-Frank package, the Fed was given an expanded regulatory role. The new consumer financial products regulator is housed within the central bank. The Fed also now officially oversees investment banks, which it had to rescue during the crisis. Congress broadened the Fed’s remit to cover nonfinancial institutions deemed “systemically important.” Congress created a new role, the “vice chairman of supervision,” to raise the prominence and importance of its responsibility. (It remains unfilled.) Perhaps most important, the Federal Reserve is supposed to play a major role in taking over big banks that fail.

Banking supervision has always been something of a backwater at the Fed. Within the institution, the sexy stuff is monetary policy. That’s where most of the resources and attention goes. The chairman and the board spend a disproportionate amount of their time on it, and monetary policy expertise largely dictates the selection of board members. Many question that mind-set.

It’s ridiculous that the job of vice chairman of supervision remains unfilled. Everybody knows the man who can, will, and should do the job: Dan Tarullo. He literally wrote the book on such things, and he’s already on the Fed board — so why the delay?

As Jesse quotes Mike Konczal as saying, “regulation needs accountability and transparency, and the Fed is just not set up to be accountable or transparent.” That needs to change — and the only way that the change is going to happen is if every board member is pushing for it to happen. Especially Ben Bernanke. He hasn’t started doing that yet, which is a bad sign. And even if and when Tarullo gets the bank-supervision job, he’s going to need to have a lot of institutional support in the rest of the organization if he’s going to be effective. So far, there’s precious little indication that he’s going to get it.

Comments
2 comments so far

And thus Obama’s list of unforced errors grows by the day. Near the top is the reappointment of Bernanke.

Posted by walt9316 | Report as abusive

“Everybody knows the man who can, will, and should do the job: Dan Tarullo.”

Perhaps this is part of the problem with the ineffective banking regulators.

If you design a regulator with one person in mind to run it (another new regulator comes to mind quite quickly), there might be problems down the road when that person is now longer calling the shots (or if that person never gets the opportunity).

Posted by SteveVB | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/