On the third anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act, former U.S.
Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE) penned an excellent yet concise critique of the law’s
efficacy over three years. The news is not good. I submit that it is worse than
Kaufman is willing to admit—worse in the sense that Congress had mishandled the
writing of the bill before it became law. I will get to this matter after
summarizing Kaufman’s points.
Kaufman points out that the big banks can still take high-risk gambles with FDIC-insured deposits. Essentially, the U.S. taxpayer is underwriting the additional risk. The mammoth $6.2 billion “London Whale” loss at JP Morgan in 2012 suggests that the banks are indeed taking advantage of the loophole. Kaufman points to a second loophole. Although Dodd-Frank contains new regulations on the financial derivatives that had played such a dramatic role in the near-meltdown in September 2008, the big banks can simply move their financial derivatives to “off shore” offices. Citigroup alone has more than 2,000 foreign subsidiaries.[1]
As for the dysfunctional Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, Kaufman points out that they are not even mentioned in Dodd-Frank! Nor can any solution to the structural conflict of interest facing the rating agencies, which are still “bought and paid for by the entities they rate.”[2] Nor, I might point out, does the law do anything to obviate the “client-pays” conflict of interest facing public accounting firms (e.g., Arthur Andersen as the “permissive” auditor of Enron). I would generalize to suggest that American lawmakers and the general public are woefully ignorant of the harm just in looking the other way rather than deconstructing an institutional conflict of interest. In fact, I submit that such a conflict is inherently unethical, rather than being so only if it is exploited.
As for the “ordered liquidation” feature of Dodd-Frank, Kaufman’s critique portrays the mechanism as if it were a sand castle sitting just above a rising tide. Although making actual sand castles on some beach might teach members of Congress how to get along, an orderly liquidation of one bank is not likely to be sufficient to stop the contagion of fear and short-selling from spreading to other banks, as they are so interconnected. Would an orderly liquidation procedure invoked for all of the large banks stave off the collapse of the financial system?
Kaufman cites an analysis by Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which finds that JPMorgan Chase, Citibank,
and Bank of America had become the three largest banks globally during the
three years of Dodd-Frank’s existence. Add in Wells Fargo and those four banks
have combined assets of 97% of the U.S. GDP in 2012.[3]
Given the continued high-risk trades and possibility of off-shore financial
derivative “bundling” and selling, the “too big to fail” problem has grown more
perilous, not less. Meanwhile, only 155 of the 389 rule makings required by
Dodd-Frank were finalized during the law’s three years of existence.[4] Put another way, a law that is utterly insufficient to eliminate the “too big to fail” systemic risk was after three years still “half baked.” The obvious question is why, and in Washington that question is answered in terms of power.
Kaufman points to the legislators in Congress who “passed the buck” to the regulators, who would have to face the powerful Wall Street lobbyists. However, he doesn’t include the impact of those lobbyists on the members of Congress themselves. That is to say, the law may have been watered down as it was being written, or “marked up,” as lawmakers gave too much influence to the financial interests that would face stiffer regulation. It is not uncommon for legislative aides to use legislative clauses written by the regulated entities themselves. Here we have stumbled on yet another tolerated structural conflict of interest!
Therefore, we can generalize perhaps in concluding that the Dodd-Frank law is insufficient even in theory, let alone practice, to solve the problem of systemic risk because of the excessive influence of Wall Street over lawmakers. As Sen. Dick Durbin said in the wake of the banks' culpability in 2008, the banks still "own" Congress.[5] That is, the endurance of excessive systemic risk has in great part been due to Congress having become more of a plutocracy than a house of the people. Consider, for example, how much chance the proposal by Sens. Warren and McCain to break up the megabanks has in the U.S. Senate (not to mention the House!), and it will be clear just how much power Wall Street actually has in Washington. This is the real problem, any solution to which is sadly not even on the horizon, and this is, kein Zufall, no accident either.
Kaufman points to the legislators in Congress who “passed the buck” to the regulators, who would have to face the powerful Wall Street lobbyists. However, he doesn’t include the impact of those lobbyists on the members of Congress themselves. That is to say, the law may have been watered down as it was being written, or “marked up,” as lawmakers gave too much influence to the financial interests that would face stiffer regulation. It is not uncommon for legislative aides to use legislative clauses written by the regulated entities themselves. Here we have stumbled on yet another tolerated structural conflict of interest!
Therefore, we can generalize perhaps in concluding that the Dodd-Frank law is insufficient even in theory, let alone practice, to solve the problem of systemic risk because of the excessive influence of Wall Street over lawmakers. As Sen. Dick Durbin said in the wake of the banks' culpability in 2008, the banks still "own" Congress.[5] That is, the endurance of excessive systemic risk has in great part been due to Congress having become more of a plutocracy than a house of the people. Consider, for example, how much chance the proposal by Sens. Warren and McCain to break up the megabanks has in the U.S. Senate (not to mention the House!), and it will be clear just how much power Wall Street actually has in Washington. This is the real problem, any solution to which is sadly not even on the horizon, and this is, kein Zufall, no accident either.
1. In a “slip of the tongue,” Kaufman wrote “subsidies” instead of “subsidiaries.” Might he have been wanting, at least unconsciously, to tell us more?
2.
Ted Kaufman, “Happy
Birthday to Dodd-Frank, A Law that Isn’t Working,” Tedkaufman.com. Accessed July 22, 2013.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
Kaufman cites the Davis Polk law firm as coming up with the numbers.
5.
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said “Congress is owned by the banks” after they
stopped his amendment that would have allowed judges to modify contested
mortgages in foreclosure.
