Dodd Plans Senate Hearing on Fannie, Freddie Takeover

Alison Vekshin,  Bloomberg

U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said he is asking Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to testify this week on the federal government’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, in a conference call with reporters today said he wants to explore the ramifications of the government’s decision to place the government-sponsored enterprises under conservatorship, removing their chief executive officers and eliminating dividends.

“We need to know whether or not this plan is going to maintain the role of the GSEs in providing affordable mortgages to Americans,” Dodd said.

The Treasury may purchase up to $200 billion of stock in the firms to keep them solvent after the weekend takeover engineered by Paulson and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart. Common stockholders of Washington-based Fannie Mae and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac will be last in line for any claims, Paulson said yesterday at a Washington news conference. Preferred shareholders will be second in absorbing losses, he said.

Paulson in July asked lawmakers to add a provision into foreclosure-prevention legislation that would let him inject capital into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through government loans and investments. It was included in the measure that became law.

Dodd said he wanted to know what happened in the past month that caused Paulson to decide the authority granted by Congress was inadequate.

`Bazooka, Squirt Gun’

“To use his analogy all he wanted was the bazooka, he didn’t want to use it. He didn’t want a squirt gun,” Dodd said on the conference call. “Merely the authority would provide exactly the desired reaction in the markets.”

Read more here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aulasfvB3y4s&pid=newsarchive


Share

Bank Lobbyists Fought For Very Thing They Now Want To Kill, Says Elizabeth Warren

Shahien Nasiripour, Huffington Post

Bank lobbyists are fighting to derail a key element of consumer protection which they fought to preserve just four years ago, threatening to kill financial reform and harm the families that would be protected by it, argues bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren in a forceful opinion piece published Tuesday.

“Banks or families?” Warren, a Harvard Law professor and chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel, asks rhetorically in an op-ed in Politico. “For almost a year, the big banks and the American Bankers Association (ABA) have presented that choice to Congress. Lobbyists argue that meaningful consumer protection will jeopardize the safety and soundness of banks, telling lawmakers that they must decide between the two.”

Indeed, bankers and federal bank regulators — with the exception of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair — argue that shifting consumer protection to a new agency, solely charged with protecting borrowers from abusive lenders, would irreparably hurt the nation’s banks. Their argument is that by protecting consumers from particular products the new agency could have a detrimental effect on bank profitability, hurting the very lenders whose health is key to the economic recovery, according to bankers and their allies.

“ABA lobbyists now aggressively insist that separating consumer protection and safety and soundness functions would unravel bank stability,” Warren writes. “Yet just a few years ago, they heatedly argued the opposite–that the functions should be distinct.

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/bank-lobbyists-fought-for_n_517982.html

Share

Will Republicans aid financial reform?

The political faultlines of financial reform are not breaking cleanly along party lines, as Republicans break rank to support it.

Thomas Noyes, UK Gaurdian

Will the GOP block financial reform to extract revenge for healthcare? John McCain, grumpy on a good day, was outright cranky over the passage of healthcare reform, promising “no co-operation for the rest of the year” on any legislation.

But not all Republicans agree they should be the “party of no”. The conservative author (and former George W Bush speechwriter) David Frum criticised fellow Republicans for trying to turn healthcare reform into Obama’s Waterloo instead of trying to get their ideas included in the bill. According to Frum, the result was that “when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none“. Frum’s remarks generated so much heat among conservatives that he resigned from the American Enterprise Institute before the week was out.
Emboldened by their success, Barack Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill wasted little time in placing financial reform next on the agenda. They are betting that a few Republicans will resist the temptation to go for all the marbles by simply opposing any bill.
Two Republican senators had already broken ranks to negotiate a bill with Democrat Chris Dodd, who chairs the Senate finance committee. Last week, Dodd decided to press the issue by releasing his own draft legislation, though he was careful to leave the door open for further negotiations with his Republican colleagues. Dodd’s bill, which runs 1,120 pages, would create a new consumer protection watchdog, regulate the exotic derivatives that have spiralled out of control and build a firewall between commercial banking and investment banking.

After the near-death experience of healthcare reform, one might think that Democrats in Congress would be wary of taking on another large, complex bill that expands government involvement in the private sector. But instead of making things harder, Dodd said that the recent passage of healthcare reform “strengthened our hand” on financial reform.
One Republican senator, Bob Corker of Tennessee, who has been talking with Dodd, thinks his party made a “major strategic error” by walking away from bipartisan negotiations on healthcare, giving Democrats a political advantage. Making things even more complicated for Republicans, another of their senators, Richard Shelby, has engaged in separate talks with Dodd. With the bankers being blamed for the current recession, it seems likely that several other Republican senators will be looking for ways to support financial reform rather than just dig in their heels.

Read more here: http://ow.ly/1rRr5

Share

Bernanke: Too big to fail a “pernicious” problem

Reuters

Regulators must be “significantly tougher” on large and complex financial firms to limit wider risks, but big firms are still needed to keep the global economy humming, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Saturday.

Bernanke told an Independent Community Bankers of America conference that the problem of some firms being perceived as “too big to fail” is among the “most insidious” barriers to competition in financial markets.

“As the crisis has shown, one of the greatest threats to the diversity and efficiency of our financial system is the pernicious problem of financial institutions that are deemed ‘too big to fail,’” he said.

“It is unconscionable that the fate of the world economy should be so closely tied to the fortunes of a relatively small number of giant financial firms,” he added.

Reform proposals that would limit the scope and activities of financial institutions “are worth careful consideration,” the Fed chief said. Supervisors should be empowered to limit large firms’ involvement in “inappropriately risky activities,” he said.

Bernanke, however, was clear that big financial firms still play a vital role, saying that a “technologically sophisticated and globalized economy” needs “large, complex, and internationally active financial firms.”

The challenge is to make sure their size does not insulate them from market discipline, he said.

Bernanke’s comments come less than a week after Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd unveiled a regulatory reform proposal that would put the U.S. central bank in charge of overseeing banks and important financial firms with assets greater than $50 billion.

The Fed already has authority over big banks, but lacks power over nonbank financial firms, such as insurer AIG, which was one of the firms at the center of the global financial crisis.

The Dodd bill would also give the Fed the power to break up big firms that could threaten the stability of the financial system if they get into trouble.

Bernanke laid out a three-pronged approach favored by the Fed on how to tackle the problem of firms that are so big and interconnected that markets believe the government would step in if they faltered.

The issue of moral hazard, or that expectations of government intervention encourages risky activities, became a subject of intense scrutiny as the global financial crisis escalated.

“First, we develop and implement significantly tougher rules and oversight that serve to reduce the risks that large, complex firms present to the financial system,” Bernanke said.

He noted that the Fed has been working with its counterparts overseas on requiring that so-called “systemically important” firms hold bigger capital and liquidity buffers.

Secondly, the Fed is working on efforts to make the financial system more resilient should a firm fail, Bernanke said. Thirdly, a new legal framework that enables the government to wind down large failing firms is needed, he said.

Bernanke said the idea of requiring systemically important firms to develop “living wills,” which would outline how they could be wound-down in an orderly way, “is worth exploring.”

The Fed chairman also continued his pushback against Dodd’s plan to hand over the Fed’s supervision of thousands of smaller banks to other regulators.

Bernanke said the Fed’s close connections with community bankers give the Fed a more forward-looking and detailed perspective on the economy that is often lost in economic data.

The grass-roots information also gives the Fed a broader understanding of risks facing the economy, such as the problems in commercial real estate lending, he said.

“A supervisory agency that focused only on the largest banking institutions, without knowledge of community banks, would get a limited and potentially distorted picture of what was happening in our banking system as a whole,” he said.

Share