James Pethokoukis

Politics and policy from inside Washington

Faith-based financial reform

April 19, 2010

The timing of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s suit against Goldman Sachs may sway a few doubters. But U.S. financial reform is still partly a matter of faith. That’s one reason for the partisan bickering. Preventing future government bank bailouts relies heavily on Wall Street believing new rules will be enforced and failures will be allowed. For skeptics, though, the current Senate bill leaves enough wiggle room to induce doubt.

On paper, Democrats have a case to support their convictions. Their bill gives regulators new authority to wind down non-bank financial institutions. Tougher new capital and leverage requirements, as well as limits on risky activities, are supposed to make failures much less likely. A $50 billion bank-financed pool would fund resolution costs — though this whole idea may yet be dropped.

The trouble is, teetering banks and their creditors might still assume that while not too big to sue — as Goldman can attest — Uncle Sam would still think them too big and interconnected to fail. And that’s the problem for many Republicans. The bill tends to favor discretion over hard and fast rules. While the feds would have the authority to shut down institutions, for instance, they wouldn’tbe required to do it. History hints that regulators and politicians will continue to be tempted to rescue banks in a crisis, a point made by several regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents who doubt the efficacy of the Dodd bill.

And those new rules on capital, leverage and risky activities will be spelled out only later by a new systemic risk council. The government would be able to guarantee financial firms’ debt without any automatic triggering of the resolution process. And it’s still fuzzy how the challenge of winding down cross-border obligations and operations would be met.

There’s an argument for leaving less to officials’ discretion. If the threat of liquidation isn’t credible, banks will operate — and investors will treat them — as if a government backstop still existed.

If the Democrats’ reform bill passes in its current form, believers might then look for signs that it’s working. One would be that big banks can no longer fund themselves so cheaply. Especially since the recent crisis, big banks — with, say, more than $100 billion in assets — have been paying less interest on deposits and debt than smaller brethren.

If that too-big-to-fail subsidy doesn’t narrow significantly, Republicans would be justified in calling for a reform revival.

Comments

Faith is fudge. It’s the same old argument. Objective truth versus subjective truth. They killed Jesus because he said, ‘I am god’[this injected doctrine of 'he died for our sins' is nothing but something that was written in the documentation to fool the people in favour of control] He told the truth. It was his truth(subjective) but when he said it in court, it became his assertion that it was also objective truth. That is what got him labeled a heretic and ultimately the death penalty. So now we have these companies saying that their truth[we can make up the rules(create a situation where we can lend to ourselves and create huge documents that the lawyers will never be able to find the details of)however we want]because no one will ever know(objective). Of course there are financial institutions and folk in the industry who said that reality (the objective truth)was something not to be ignored with “Irrational exuberance”.
And so now we are back you your FAITH theme and yes it takes faith but also reality.

Posted by edeichnger | Report as abusive
 

I don’t see what Faith in Jesus has to do with Goldman Sachs.

Posted by Storyburncom_is | Report as abusive
 

Maybe this meltdown is and Act of God, also maybe it is rather a leap of faith.

Posted by Ghandiolfini | Report as abusive
 

If faith in government means putting up with monumental bailouts and selling indulgences to shady dealers, then faith in the nature of the free market is MIA.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive
 

Supply Siders had blind faith that self interest would preserve us, and their regulatory appointees considered themselves redundant, despite overwhelming historical evidence, and material incentives to the contrary.

Posted by loguealator | 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/
  •