As debate on the Wall Street Reform bill returns today to the floor of
the Senate, lobbyists are working overtime to insert loopholes and
special provisions into the bill. Back in March, Treasury Secretary
Geithner made clear to the audience at the American Enterprise
Institute the threat we face at this stage of the game:
The White House Blog
Posted by Dan Pfeiffer
on May 4, 2010 at 7:00 AM EDT
Loopholes are a lobbyist’s best friend.
As debate on the Wall Street Reform bill returns today to the floor
of the Senate, lobbyists are working overtime to insert loopholes and
special provisions into the bill. Back in March, Treasury Secretary
Geithner made clear to the audience at the American Enterprise
Institute the threat we face at this stage of the game:
“…watch this process closely, for it will be a test of
our capacity as a nation to deal with complex and consequential
problems. When you see amendments designed to weaken the basic
protections of reform; when you see amendments to exempt certain types
of financial firms or financial instruments from rules; ask why we
should be protecting those private interests at the expense of the
public interest.”
So to kick off this week of amendments and help you follow along,
please take a look at the Top Ten Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes:
- Ok, Consumer Protection Rules are Fine… Just Don’t
Enforce Them. The current bill would apply the same rules
to providers of consumer financial services or products, whether the
provider is a bank or a non-bank financial provider. The bill would
also allow State Attorneys General to enforce those rules. Lobbyists
are pushing hard to amend the bill so that Attorneys General lose their
enforcement authority. Why does that matter? Because the Bureau would
only supervise larger market participants. Without state AG enforcement
authority, the citizens of their states will have much less protection
against illegal conduct. If you want to weaken consumer protections,
that’s one way to do it.
- Letting Non-Banks Play by a Weaker Set of Rules.
We know this is coming, so keep an eye out: attempts to give car
dealers that make car loans and other major providers of financial
services a big exemption from the consumer protection rules. Now be
aware: some people try to scare small businesses by saying that the
consumer financial protection bureau will regulate main street
businesses like orthodontists and florists. That is not true. But if a
car dealer makes loans, or if a big department store sets up a
financial services center, it’s doing what banks and credit unions do,
and it should play by the same rules.
- If You Can’t Kill Consumer Protection Now, Starve it to
Death Later. One of the keys to effective consumer
protection is having a consumer financial protection bureau that is
independent. And one of the keys to independence is having an
independent source of funding. So be prepared for attempts to take away
the bureau’s source of funds. And also watch out for broader attempts
to restrict the bureau’s independence or chip away at its ability to
establish clear rules of the road for a fair and transparent consumer
financial marketplace.
- Preventing States from Protecting Their Own Citizens.
Under the current bill, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
would set minimum standards for the consumer finance market, but states
would still be allowed to adopt additional protections. In other words,
federal consumer protections would set a floor, not a ceiling. There’s
likely to be a fight about that provision. Citing the doctrine of
“preemption,” big banks will try to take away states’ ability to
supplement federal consumer protections. Why is this a problem? Because
state officials are often the first to learn of new abuses and new
problems in the marketplace, and we should not get rid of that canary in
the coal mine. Federal law can overrule or “preempt” state law when a
state law would significantly interfere with national banks’ business of
banking, but states should otherwise have the right to protect their
citizens as they see fit.
- Removing the Derivatives Trading Requirement to Protect
Wall Street Profits. Under the current bill, standard
derivatives would have to be traded on exchanges or other electronic
trading platforms. Expect amendments to eliminate this trading
requirement. Why? Because not everyone likes transparency. Today, the
big derivatives dealers make big profits by charging end-users extra
spreads and hidden fees, and they don’t want that to change.
- Stretching the Derivatives “End-User” Exemption into a
Hedge Fund Loophole. Under the current bill, there is a
narrow exemption from the derivatives clearing and trading requirement
for commercial firms that are not financial companies, not major
participants in the derivatives market, and that are using derivatives
to hedge their real risks – not taking one-way bets like AIG. Be on the
lookout for attempts to stretch this exemption into a loophole – for
example, by saying that the exemption should apply hedge funds and other
financial companies.
- Creating an “AIG Loophole.” Under the
current bill, the Financial Services Oversight Council would have the
ability to designate a very large “non-bank” financial company – like
AIG, for example – for tougher supervision by the Federal Reserve.
Since one of the key principles of financial reform is that firms should
be regulated according to the risks they pose, not according to their
corporate form, this is an important provision. But rest assured, there
are large “non-banks” out there who would rather not be scrutinized
quite so closely.
- Who Needs to Know What’s Happening at Insurance
Companies? Insurance is regulated by the states, not the
federal government – and this bill doesn’t change that. But this bill
would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information
from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks
before they blow up the financial system – like AIG. After so many
insurance companies got into so much trouble that they needed government
support to survive, you’d think that would be a no-brainer. But not
everyone agrees. Keep an eye out for loopholes that would protect
insurance companies from a number of provisions in the bill – including
even basic information gathering.
- Letting Firms Make Loans Without Skin in the Game.
A key lesson of the crisis is that firms in the mortgage business
should have a stake in the loans they sell or securitize. Skin in the
game gives strong incentives to make good quality loans. Mortgage
industry lobbyists are pushing hard to kill this idea. It’s cheaper for
mortgage lenders and Wall Street to be in the mortgage business if they
don’t have to worry about the borrower’s ability to pay – but it’s a lot
more costly for Americans to perpetuate the same system that helped
cause the housing crash.
- Preserving “Too Big to Fail” While Pretending to Kill
It. The key to preventing future bailouts is to end the
problem of “Too Big to Fail.” And the only way to do that is to make
sure that we can shut down big financial firms in a swift, orderly way
if they’re on the brink of failure. Of course, not everyone wants to
see “Too Big to Fail” disappear, since it lets the biggest firms borrow
money at lower cost and avoid the consequences of excessive
risk-taking. But no one wants to be caught defending the status quo. So
defenders of the status quo are using a sleight of hand: pushing to
make the resolution process so unwieldy that it can never work. By
proposing amendments that look tough but that make the resolution
process unworkable, opponents of reform will try to save “Too Big to
Fail” while pretending to kill it.
Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director
|