Stephen Reader
Stephen Reader covers politics for It's a Free Country, WNYC's interactive politics site. He joined the station in 2010 and has also worked for Studio 360, WNYC's Peabody Award-winning show about art, culture, and creativity.
Welcome to Politics Bites, where every afternoon at It's A Free Country, we bring you the unmissable quotes from the morning's political conversations on WNYC. Today on the Brian Lehrer Show, Deborah Solomon, financial policy writer for The Wall Street Journal, talked about delays in implementing financial industry regulations and what impact they are likely to have on Wall Street profits.
Since passage of the Dodd-Frank Act last summer, which placed new regulations and raised capital requirements on big banks, there's been a consistent effort from business interests and the political Right to repeal. Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently renewed calls to do away with the law, citing an economic depression as grounds to leave financial institutions alone so they can get back to the business of lending.
Deborah Solomon said that banks are particularly miffed about being required to hold more capital in case of future crises. Exorbitant minimums make banks less able to put more money into the economy, they argue.
They don't like that. They think they've boosted their capital cushions well enough. Obviously they all did these stress tests during the crisis and had to raise capital; they feel like they're already complying with an international agreement that gets capital levels higher and asking for any more is overkill and would put them at a disadvantage with overseas banks, which may not be as well capitalized and make them less willing to spend their money elsewhere.
Big banks may not like it, but some critics say that's a good thing. Excessive regulation could actually tax and burden too-big-to-fail banks out of existence, dispersing all the functions of complex and obscure financial giants into smaller, more focused, more easily governable bodies. Deborah Solomon said there was something to that argument, and that bad-tasting medicine might be best for everyone in the long term.
If you make these capital standards high enough and burdensome enough, then firms aren't going to grow larger. If you know that you have to hold a lot more capital because you have some risky assets, you might think twice about holding those assets.
Comments [1]
Instead of the government trying to find some regulatory balance that serves the business needs and of the investors, why not use the tried and true Capitalistic approach to regulation? Provide the options and the rules that go along with them for how an investment company can choose to operate and the tax and protection treatments that the Federal Government will offer them based on those options. This approach can provide a much more efficient and beneficial approach for the government.
I suspect the reason is that neither the financial institutions nor the government is possessed of the intelligence required to "think outside the box". It's the omni-present problem that we are suffering under in many of our societal areas today. A lack of ability to invision a better way.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.