Category: Commentary

Health Care Reform and Fairness

Over at the Washington Post this week, it’s back to health care reform, and our topic is fairness. Specifically, somebody has to pay if we’re going to have near-universal coverage. Do you think it should be the people who benefit immediately (the uninsured middle class*) or do you think the payment mechanism should have nothing to do with the beneficiaries (like Medicare and, to an extent, Social Security)? I think this comes down to two concepts of what government programs are for. If the former, you probably want low (or zero) subsidies; if the latter, you probably want to tax the rich, tax gasoline, auction off emission permits, or something like that.

* This is a simplification, I know. But basically, the very poor have Medicaid and will still have Medicaid after reform; most of the insured middle class have employer-based coverage or Medicare, and that isn’t going anywhere in the short term. In the long term, as we’ve argued elsewhere, everyone benefits (except the super-rich) because of increased health care security.

By James Kwak

Financial Regulation, a Slightly Optimistic View

The big news on the regulatory front last week was the Wall Street Journal’s revelation that the Federal Reserve will give its regulators the ability to reject any pay package for any bank employee that encourages excessive risk-taking. The Fed is apparently claiming this authority on the grounds that as a safety-and-soundness regulator, it has the right to prohibit any bank practices that threaten the safety and soundness of the bank. Sounds good to me.

Now, there are certainly reasons to be skeptical, which Yves Smith abundantly outlines. This could be a ploy to gain some populist credentials and head off more Congressional oversight of the Fed. The Fed has been willing to trust banks to tell it what their risks are, so it is not equipped to identify compensation packages that create excessive risk. TheFed will be looking (according to the WSJ) for outliers among the group of the top 25 banks – so as long as all 25 banks are engaged in the same silly compensation practice, the Fed will let it go.

Continue reading “Financial Regulation, a Slightly Optimistic View” →

The Fed, Regulation, And The Next Recession

This op ed appeared in the New York Times yesterday (9/20/2009).

SPEAKING at the Brookings Institution last week, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, remarked that the recession in the United States is “very likely over.” He’s surely right that a recovery is under way; in fact, the short-term bounce back may actually turn out to be faster than he thinks — rapid growth is not uncommon right after a severe financial crisis.

Mr. Bernanke commands great respect because of his impressive efforts to head off financial collapse, but his speech was deeply worrisome on the bigger questions: what caused the financial crisis, and how can we prevent another such calamity? Continue reading “The Fed, Regulation, And The Next Recession” →

You Cannot Be Serious: US Strategy for the G20

According to the WSJ this morning (top of p.A1), the US is pushing hard for the G20 to adopt and implement a “Framework for Sustainable and Balanced Growth,” which would amount to the US saving more, China saving less, and Europe “making structural changes to boost business investment” (and presumably some homework for Japan and the oil exporters, although that is not stressed in the article).

This is pointless rhetoric, for three reasons. Continue reading “You Cannot Be Serious: US Strategy for the G20” →

Protect Consumers, Raise Capital, And Jam The Revolving Wall St-Washington Door

Ben Bernanke has a great opportunity to lead the reform of our financial system.  His standing in Washington and on Wall Street is at an all-time high, as a result of his bailout/rescue efforts.  He is about to be reappointed with acclaim for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.  And he has a lot to answer for.

Look, for example, at his speech of May 17, 2007, which discusses some of the problems in the subprime market and contains the memorable line: “Importantly, we see no serious broader spillover to banks or thift institutions from problems in the subprime market; the troubled lenders, for the most part, have not been institutions with federally insured deposits” (full speech; marks in the margin are from an anonymous and careful correspondent.) Continue reading “Protect Consumers, Raise Capital, And Jam The Revolving Wall St-Washington Door” →

Regulatory Arbitrage 2.0

Gillian Tett has the latest perspective on a curious deal that Barclays did earlier this week (hat tip Brad DeLong). The deal goes something like this. Two former Barclays execs are starting a fund called Protium Finance. Protium has two equity investors who are putting in $450 million. Barclays is lending Protium $12.6 billion. Protium is using the cash to buy $12.3 billion in what we used to call toxic assets from Barclays. Protium’s 45 staff members get a management fee of $40 million per year (presumably from the equity investors, although that seems steep). Returns from the investments will be paid as follows, in this order (and this is important): (1) fund management fees; (2) a guaranteed 7% return to investors; (3) repayment of the Barclays loan; and (4) residual cash flows to the investors.

Barclays emphasized that it was not participating in regulatory arbitrage, because it is keeping the toxic assets on its balance sheet for regulatory purposes. That is, because it has a lot of exposure to those assets through its huge loan, it will continue to hold capital against those assets. So far so good.

Continue reading “Regulatory Arbitrage 2.0” →

Good for You, Barney

With the waves of criticism that come out of this website, I wanted to acknowledge someone for doing the right thing. Bloomberg reports that Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, barred Michael Paese, a former committee staff member and now Goldman Sachs lobbyist, from lobbying anyone on the Democratic side of the committee until the end of 2010. Paese was already barred from lobbying his old committee for one year after he left the staff in September 2008, so Frank is effectively extending the ban for another year and a bit.

The government-lobbyist revolving door has been around for a long time, and a one-year prohibition is just not long enough; it shifts the incentives too far to the side of using government service as a way to build friendly contacts in industry. Conceptually, I think the ban should be longer and pay for government employees should go up, in order to push the incentives the other way. But I’m not holding my breath.

By James Kwak

Why Didn’t The Major Bank CEOs Show Up On Monday?

Speaking on Wall Street at noon Monday, President Obama laid blame for the crisis and recession of 2008-09 squarely at the feet of the financial sector.  The diagnosis was sound but the rest of his speech was disappointing – the administration’s draft regulatory reforms look lame, banks are fully mobilized against the only proposal with any teeth (a consumer protection agency for financial products), and the President’s call to “please don’t do it again” surely fell on deaf ears.

In fact, were any of the most relevant ears even listening?  The real news from Monday was not the substance of the speech or the stony silence of the financial elite in the audience, but rather that not a single chief executive officer (CEO) of a major bank was in attendance. Continue reading “Why Didn’t The Major Bank CEOs Show Up On Monday?” →

Voodoo Cost Savings

If you really want to know about Max Baucus’s bill, head on over to Ezra Klein’s blog, which is all Baucus, all day. If you want to complain about fake cost-saving measures, stay here.

A major selling point of the Baucus bill (can’t really call it the Group of Six bill with zero Republican support; can’t call it the Democratic bill with questionable Democratic support), at least in the media, is its lower cost – $860 billion according to Baucus, $770 billion according to the CBO. This compares to the $1 trillion cost of the House bill. But this is a meaningless number, for two reasons.

Continue reading “Voodoo Cost Savings” →

The CFPA and Small Banks

To be clear, I favor the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. I favor it because I think it will be good for consumers. I also like to think that it will be good for small banks relative to big banks. My main argument for this is that should not harm the main competitive advantages of smaller banks, which should be customer service and local underwriting. But I’m still in favor of the CFPA even if it doesn’t help small banks.

John Pottow (hat tip Mike Konczal) agrees on the small bank point. His main argument is that the CFPA should lower fixed regulatory costs by making it easier to get approval for basic products. He also adds this point:

“The current credit market, with its indecipherable multi-page contracts, is not competitive. Actually, that’s not true: It’s perniciously competitive — the competition focuses on better hiding fees in small print. Burying terms in legal documents is an activity where larger banks again hold the advantage. By contrast, a true plain vanilla market would remove the obfuscation and refocus the competition on price. Once more, smaller lenders would benefit from this increased transparency and leveled playing field.”

Continue reading “The CFPA and Small Banks” →

No, Wait! This Is What I Really Want!

I try not to comment on purely political issues, but sometimes they are just too infuriating.

Over the last few days, Max Baucus has been leaking “his” health care proposal, which should be made public. Regular readers will know I’m no fan of Max Baucus, whose main goals seem to be killing the public option (I know, it’s not as big deal as it’s made out to be, but it isn’t irrelevant) and cutting subsidies to poor people. But supposedly, the whole point of the Baucus/Group of Six approach was that it would result in a bipartisan bill that could clear the Senate. The tradeoff was very simple; a plan that isn’t as good as it could be, but one that could pass.

Yesterday, The New York Times reported two of the three Republicans in the Group of Six, Charles Grassley and Michael Enzi, are against the Baucus proposal, and even Olympia Snowe wants changes.

Continue reading “No, Wait! This Is What I Really Want!” →

Obama And Brandeis

President Obama’s speech yesterday was disappointing.  As a diagnosis of the problems that let us into financial crisis, it was his clearest and best effort so far.  He didn’t say it was a rare accident for which no one is to blame; rather he placed the blame squarely on the structure, incentives, and actions of Wall Street.

But then he said: our regulatory reforms will fix that.  This is hard to believe.  And even the President seems to have his doubts, because he added a plea that – in the meantime – the financial sector should behave better.

The audience was comprised of our financial elite, but the Wall Street Journal reports “not one CEO from a top U.S. bank was in attendance” (p.A4).  How’s that for demonstrating respect, gratitude, and a willingness to behave better? Continue reading “Obama And Brandeis” →

Obama, the Light Touch?

Edmund L. Andrews and David E. Sanger have an article in The New York Times today that is sure to infuriate some people, including me. Here’s one excerpt:

“Far from eagerly micromanaging the companies the government owns, Mr. Obama and his economic team have often labored mightily to avoid exercising control even when government money was the only thing keeping some companies afloat.

“A few weeks ago, there were anguished grimaces inside the Treasury Department as the new chief executive of A.I.G., Robert H. Benmosche, whose roughly $9 million pay package is 22 times greater than Mr. Obama’s, ridiculed officials in Washington — his majority shareholders — as ‘crazies.’

“Causing even more unease to policymakers, Mr. Benmosche insisted that A.I.G. — one of the worst offenders in the risk-taking that sent the nation over the edge last year — would not rush to sell its businesses at fire-sale prices, despite pressure from Fed and Treasury officials, who are desperate to have the insurer repay its $180 billion government bailout.

“But in the end, according to one senior official, ‘no one called him and told him to shut up,’ and no one has pulled rank and told him to sell assets as soon as possible to repay the loans.

“A similar hands-off decision was made about the auto companies. Shortly after General Motors and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, some members of the administration’s auto task force argued that the group should not go out of business until it was confident that a new management team in Detroit had a handle on what needed to be done.

“But Mr. Summers strongly rejected that approach, and the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, agreed.

“‘The argument was that if the president said he wasn’t elected to run G.M., then we couldn’t hire a new board and then try to run any aspect of it,’ one participant in the discussions said. The auto task force took off for summer vacation in July, and it never returned.”

The political argument for this position makes sense. Basically, Obama and his administration are afraid of being charged with “socialism” or “big government,” so they are doing what they can to defuse this charge. (Not that that will help given the way political rhetoric is thrown around these days.)

Continue reading “Obama, the Light Touch?” →

Where Are We Again? (Pre-G20 Pittsburgh summit)

This revision to our Baseline Scenario is required reading for my Global Entrepreneurship Lab (GLAB) class at MIT this week.  For those classes, please also look at these updated slides.

Financial markets have stabilized – people believe that the US and West European governments will not allow big financial institutions to fail.  We have effectively nationalized any banking system losses, but we’ll let bank executives enjoy the full benefits of the upside.  How much shareholders participate remains to be seen; there will be no effective reining in of insider compensation (my version; Joe Nocera’s view).  Small and medium-sized banks, however, will continue to fail as problems in commercial real estate continue to mount.

The economic recovery, in the short-term, may be surprisingly strong in terms of headline numbers; this is a standard feature of emerging markets after a crisis (e.g., Russia from 1998 or Argentina after 2002).  Official short-term forecasts are probably now too low, as the IMF and other organizations make the case for continued fiscal stimulus and very loose monetary policy. Continue reading “Where Are We Again? (Pre-G20 Pittsburgh summit)” →

Economic Donkeys

Early in the First World War, British generals decided to attack German trenches with an initial light bombardment, followed by infantry walking in close order across No Man’s Land.  The result was tens of thousands killed in a series of military disasters, but the generals reacted with only small adjustments to their approach and essentially persisted in repeating the same mistakes for years.  “The English soldiers fight like lions,” one German general remarked. “True.  But don’t we know that they are lions led by donkeys?” was the reply.

Today, a year after global financial collapse and the ensuing tragedy for millions, our economic leaders are lining us up to suffer again (and again) through the same horrible experiences. Continue reading “Economic Donkeys” →