Oh, how those investment bankers deplore the “burdensome,” “onerous” regulations – you know, the ones that prevent them from gambling with money in depositor’s accounts. And, oh how they’d love to have Freedom to create jobs (their own) … so they got it in the spending bill. In short, the Christmas gift from the House of Representatives to Wall Street is a spending bill that allows the bankers to privatize their profits and socialize their losses. If the next round of fun in the Wall Street Casino goes haywire, the taxpayers will be on the hook to bail them out – again.
Senator Elizabeth Warren called the bill the “Citigroup Shutdown,” or ‘let us get out from under the regulations of the Dodd Frank Act – or the government will face a shutdown.’ There might not have been such a blatant situation since the Beslan School hostage crisis of 2004. Among those making the demands on behalf of the provision drafted by Citigroup lobbyists was none other than JPMorganChase’s Jamie Dimon.
What’s inside the Christmas Gift from the taxpayers? A way to get as far as possible from the push-out rule in the Dodd Frank Act.
“Banks hate the push-out rule…because this provision will forbid them from trading certain derivatives (which are complicated financial instruments with values derived from underlying variables, such as crop prices or interest rates). Under this rule, banks will have to move these risky trades into separate non-bank affiliates that aren’t insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and are less likely to receive government bailouts. The bill would smother the push-out rule in its crib by permitting banks to use government-insured deposits to bet on a wider range of these risky derivatives.” [MJ] (emphasis added)
No longer are insured deposits immune from being put on the table in the Wall Street Casino – there is no ‘Chinese Wall’ between depositors money and the ‘chips’ for the Wall Street traders – there isn’t even a wicker fence between your money and the trading desks. What could possibly go wrong?
Can we say HOUSING BUBBLE? Can we say MORTGAGE BACKED DERIVATIVES? And, just as the American Banker predicted, we’re reminded of the role played by the bankers in the Debacle of 2007-08:
“What they won was the repeal of a Dodd-Frank Act provision that requires them to push out a portion of their derivatives business into subsidiaries. Big banks fought against its inclusion in the 2010 financial reform law and have been steadily fighting to repeal it ever since. The spending bill is expected to pass the Senate in the coming days.
But in finally getting what they wanted, big banks also thrust themselves back into the limelight in the worst possible way, simultaneously reminding the public of their role in causing the financial crisis and in their continuing influence over the various levers of the U.S government. In one fell swoop, they undid whatever recovery to their battered reputation they’d made in the past four years and once again cast themselves as the prototypical supervillain in a comic book movie.”
Yes. They. Did. By a 219-206 vote the Cram-nibus bill made it through the House of Representatives. Nevada Representatives Amodei, Heck, and Horsford voted in favor of the bill. Representative Titus voted against it. [roll call 563]
On the Senate Side
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is expecting a quick vote.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he hoped the bill would pass on Friday to spare Americans the drama of yet another budget crisis. While there could be some opposition to the measure from both the left flank of the Democrats and some Republicans, it appeared it would garner the 60 votes needed in the 100-seat Senate to overcome any procedural blocks. [Reuters]
Let’s assume that most of the Republicans will be in favor of the bill, there may be some outliers in that camp who’d like to do a bit of show-boating but it wouldn’t be prudent to assume they’ll oppose it in the final analysis. However, with the Citigroup Draft included in the bill the remaining supporters will have some explaining to do to the folks back home, for example:
How can you say you are against bank bail outs and vote in favor of a bill which lets banks gamble in the derivatives market with insured deposits?
This can be accomplished with a bit of verbal legerdemain, such as practiced by Senator Dean Heller (R-NV). Senator Heller is fond of criticizing the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act (financial regulation reform), he’s even called for its outright repeal. [DB, FreedomWorks, DB]
The junior Senator is quite fond of citing his vote against the TARP bill as “proof” he’s against bank bail outs.” While he’s telling Nevadans how much he disapproves of bank bail outs, his actual voting record is a banker’s delight and he added to his bank talking point repertoire by hauling out the “community banks” card during a Senate Banking Committee meeting in 2013 about the ‘evils’ of the Dodd Frank Act. However, mostly he’s railed on about “onerous, burdensome,” … oppressive, weighty, worrisome, stressful, demanding, taxing, difficult, irksome, heavy, wearing, crushing, exacting, and maybe even superincumbent … government regulations. That’s his “out.”
Oh, yes, he’s all in favor of good banking practices – he just doesn’t want to burden, concern, load, strain, trouble, afflict, encumber, hinder, or grieve the bankers. He doesn’t want to cause them hardship, put the onus on them, hold them accountable, or bedevil them with obstructions, millstones, or balls and chains. The upcoming vote on the spending bill will be highly instructive – If Senator Heller is SO opposed to bank bail outs that he never wants to see another one, will he vote for a measure which all but guarantees the bank trading desks will engineer another bubble, and take down the U.S. economy with it? – creating the necessity of yet another bail out?
The ABA was right – the provision in the spending bill puts the banks in some unwanted limelight, and puts a spotlight on members of the Senate like Dean Heller – will he have to find yet one more excuse to explain away his Banker’s Best Boy reputation?
We do need some fast action on the bill, but Senator Reid would be well advised to give support for an amendment stripping the Citigroup gutting of the Dodd Frank Act from the measure. The Citigroup insertion is a ‘poison pill’ – swallow it and the financial reforms become a travesty – don’t swallow it and face the wrath of right wing talkers and pundits about how the “Democrats caused the shutdown.” Rock meet hard place.