GROWING WORRIES IN ATHENS
A Greek Default Would Hit the ECB Hard
Hopes that Greece can be saved are dwindling. Athens had hoped to reach a deal with its creditors on a 50 percent debt haircut, but banks have now made it clear that efforts to reach an agreement could fail. Should the country go bankrupt, the European Central Bank stands to lose the most.
Richard Russell made a remarkable confession earlier this week.
He said that he finds the financial markets to be so inscrutable that trying to time them is close to futile. He says that he’s therefore decided to invest a good chunk of the accounts he manages in a mutual fund that has a static allocation to several uncorrelated asset classes.
Russell, of course, is the grandaddy of the investment advisory industry, having continuously published his Dow Theory Letters advisory service since 1958, more than 50 years ago. He has seen more bull and bear markets than almost any of the rest of us, and he has the cynicism that is borne of witnessing innumerable new strategies and approaches that have come onto the investment scene to great fanfare and then ultimately failed.
As an illustration of the mixed and divergent signals the market is sending, Russell writes: “I recently read the works of A. Gary Shilling and Bob Prechter’s Elliott Wave Forecast, and they provide really convincing reasons as to why we’re going into deflation. I read Larry Edelson and a dozen other advisors and they provide excellent reasons why we’re heading into hyperinflation.”
I sympathize with Russell’s argument. As fate would have it, I read his comments while at the World Money Show in Orlando, where I will be giving a couple of workshops. After listening to some of the other workshops at this conference, I was convinced that I’d be a fool to have any exposure whatsoever to the equity markets. Upon listening to other workshops, in contrast, I concluded that I should mortgage the house to put everything into the stock market.
Unfortunately, examining these advisers’ track records goes only so far in helping us decide which of these viewpoints is correct. Even among the advisers with the very best long-term performances, there still is widespread disagreement.
The first step towards wisdom in this business is to recognize that your chosen adviser might get it all wrong — no matter how good his track record and how cogent his reasoning. This seems like an utterly banal thing to say, and yet if we are willing to follow its logic, you reach a very provocative conclusion.
The late Harry Browne, the one-time investment newsletter editor who became the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president in the 1990s, was one adviser who was willing. In his book “Why The Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong,” Browne pleaded with readers not to bet all or nothing on any one adviser, no matter how good his or her record, or any sure-fire market timing system that allegedly “can’t” go wrong.
Browne continued: “Almost nothing turns out as expected. Forecasts rarely come true, trading systems never produce the results advertised for them, investment advisers with records of phenomenal success fail to deliver when your money is on the line, the best investment analysis is contradicted by reality. In short, the best-laid investment plans usually go wrong. Not sometimes, not occasionally — but usually.”
Browne’s idea was to invest in a basket of asset classes, each one of which has a low correlation with the others. As a result, when any one of the asset classes is performing poorly, there is a good chance that the others will at least be holding their own — if not actually appreciating in value. Brown coined the name “permanent portfolio” to describe this approach, since it makes no changes other than periodic rebalancing.
Brown’s idea eventually manifested itself in a mutual fund, the Permanent Portfolio Fund /quotes/comstock/10r!prpfx (PRPFX 46.02, +0.08, +0.17%) . It is into this fund that Russell says he’s putting a good deal of the accounts he manages.
Mark Hulbert is the founder of Hulbert Financial Digest in Annandale, Va. He has been tracking the advice of more than 160 financial newsletters since 1980.
The Best Laid Plans Often Go Awry – Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch
“We Should Have Gone Swedish . . .” Barry Ritholtz (hat tip reader Swedish Lex)
This article, Stopping a Financial Crisis, the Swedish Way, published exactly 2 years ago today, provides an answer:
“A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic. Sound familiar?
It does to Sweden. The country was so far in the hole in 1992 — after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom — that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.
But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.
Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.
That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.” (emphasis added)
Austerity is stupid, stimulus is dangerous, lying is optimal, economic choices are not scalar Steve Waldman
I’ve been on whatever planet I go to when I’m not writing. Don’t ask, your guess is as good as mine.
When I checked out out a few weeks ago, there was a debate raging on “fiscal austerity”. Checking back in, it continues to rage. In the course of about a half an hour, I’ve read about ten posts on the subject. See e.g. Martin Wolf and Yves Smith, Mike Konczal, and just about everything Paul Krugman has written lately. While I’ve been writing, Tyler Cowen has a new post, which is fantastic. Mark Thoma has delightfully named one side of the debate the “austerians”. Surely someone can come up with a cleverly risqué coinage for those in favor of stimulus?
The paper system being founded on public confidence and having of itself no intrinsic value, is liable to great and sudden fluctuations, thereby rendering property insecure and the wages of labor unsteady and uncertain.
The corporations which create the paper money cannot be relied upon to keep the circulating medium uniform in amount. In times of prosperity, when confidence is high, they are tempted by the prospect of gain or by the influence of those who hope to profit by it to extend their issues of paper beyond the bounds of discretion and the reasonable demands of business.
And when these issues have been pushed on from day to day until the public confidence is at length shaken, then a reaction takes place, and they immediately withdraw the credits they have given; suddenly curtail their issues; and produce an unexpected and ruinous contraction of the circulating medium which is felt by the whole community.
The banks, by this means, save themselves, and the mischievous consequences of their imprudence or cupidity are visited upon the public. Nor does the evil stop here. These ebbs and flows in the currency and these indiscreet extensions of credit naturally engender a spirit of speculation injurious to the habits and character of the people. We have already seen its effects in the wild spirit of speculation in the public lands and various kinds of stock which, within the last year or two, seized upon such a multitude of our citizens and threatened to pervade all classes of society and to withdraw their attention from the sober pursuits of honest industry. It is not by encouraging this spirit that we shall best preserve public virtue and promote the true interests of our country.
But if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money at any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption which will find its way into your public councils and destroy, at no distant day, the purity of your government. Some of the evils which arise from this system of paper press, with peculiar hardship, upon the class of society least able to bear it…
Recent events have proved that the paper money system of this country may be used as an engine to undermine your free institutions; and that those who desire to engross all power in the hands of the few and to govern by corruption or force are aware of its power and prepared to employ it. Your banks now furnish your only circulating medium, and money is plenty or scarce according to the quantity of notes issued by them. While they have capitals not greatly disproportioned to each other, they are competitors in business, and no one of them can exercise dominion over the rest. And although, in the present state of the currency, these banks may and do operate injuriously upon the habits of business, the pecuniary concerns, and the moral tone of society, yet, from their number and dispersed situation, they cannot combine for the purpose of political influence; and whatever may be the dispositions of some of them their power of mischief must necessarily be confined to a narrow space and felt only in their immediate neighborhoods.
But when the charter of the Bank of the United States was obtained from Congress, it perfected the schemes of the paper system and gave its advocates the position they have struggled to obtain from the commencement of the federal government down to the present hour. The immense capital and peculiar privileges bestowed upon it enabled it to exercise despotic sway over the other banks in every part of the country. From its superior strength it could seriously injure, if not destroy, the business of any one of them which might incur its resentment; and it openly claimed for itself the power of regulating the currency throughout the United States. In other words, it asserted (and it undoubtedly possessed) the power to make money plenty or scarce, at its pleasure, at any time, and in any quarter of the Union, by controlling the issues of other banks and permitting an expansion or compelling a general contraction of the circulating medium according to its own will.
The other banking institutions were sensible of its strength, and they soon generally became its obedient instruments, ready at all times to execute its mandates; and with the banks necessarily went, also, that numerous class of persons in our commercial cities who depend altogether on bank credits for their solvency and means of business; and who are, therefore, obliged for their own safety to propitiate the favor of the money power by distinguished zeal and devotion in its service.
The result of the ill-advised legislation which established this great monopoly was to concentrate the whole money power of the Union, with its boundless means of corruption and its numerous dependents, under the direction and command of one acknowledged head; thus organizing this particular interest as one body and securing to it unity and concert of action throughout the United States and enabling it to bring forward, upon any occasion, its entire and undivided strength to support or defeat any measure of the government. In the hands of this formidable power, thus perfectly organized, was also placed unlimited dominion over the amount of the circulating medium, giving it the power to regulate the value of property and the fruits of labor in every quarter of the Union and to bestow prosperity or bring ruin upon any city or section of the country as might best comport with its own interest or policy.
We are not left to conjecture how the moneyed power, thus organized and with such a weapon in its hands, would be likely to use it. The distress and alarm which pervaded and agitated the whole country when the Bank of the United States waged war upon the people in order to compel them to submit to its demands cannot yet be forgotten. The ruthless and unsparing temper with which whole cities and communities were oppressed, individuals impoverished and ruined, and a scene of cheerful prosperity suddenly changed into one of gloom and despondency ought to be indelibly impressed on the memory of the people of the United States.
If such was its power in a time of peace, what would it not have been in a season of war with an enemy at your doors? No nation but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest; yet, if you had not conquered, the government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few; and this organized money power, from its secret conclave, would have directed the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war as best suited their own wishes. The forms of your government might, for a time, have remained; but its living spirit would have departed from it.
The distress and sufferings inflicted on the people by the Bank are some of the fruits of that system of policy which is continually striving to enlarge the authority of the federal government beyond the limits fixed by the Constitution. The powers enumerated in that instrument do not confer on Congress the right to establish such a corporation as the Bank of the United States; and the evil consequences which followed may warn us of the danger of departing from the true rule of construction and of permitting temporary circumstances or the hope of better promoting the public welfare to influence, in any degree, our decisions upon the extent of the authority of the general government. Let us abide by the Constitution as it is written or amend it in the constitutional mode if it is found defective.
The severe lessons of experience will, I doubt not, be sufficient to prevent Congress from again chartering such a monopoly, even if the Constitution did not present an insuperable objection to it. But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty; and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your states as well as in the federal government.
The power which the moneyed interest can exercise, when concentrated under a single head, and with our present system of currency, was sufficiently demonstrated in the struggle made by the Bank of the United States. Defeated in the general government, the same class of intriguers and politicians will now resort to the states and endeavor to obtain there the same organization which they failed to perpetuate in the Union; and with specious and deceitful plans of public advantages and state interests and state pride they will endeavor to establish, in the different states, one moneyed institution with overgrown capital and exclusive privileges sufficient to enable it to control the operations of the other banks.
Such an institution will be pregnant with the same evils produced by the Bank of the United States, although its sphere of action is more confined; and in the state in which it is chartered the money power will be able to embody its whole strength and to move together with undivided force to accomplish any object it may wish to attain. You have already had abundant evidence of its power to inflict injury upon the agricultural, mechanical, and laboring classes of society, and over whose engagements in trade or speculation render them dependent on bank facilities, the dominion of the state monopoly will be absolute, and their obedience unlimited. With such a bank and a paper currency, the money power would, in a few years, govern the state and control its measures; and if a sufficient number of states can be induced to create such establishments, the time will soon come when it will again take the field against the United States and succeed in perfecting and perpetuating its organization by a charter from Congress.
It is one of the serious evils of our present system of banking that it enables one class of society, and that by no means a numerous one, by its control over the currency to act injuriously upon the interests of all the others and to exercise more than its just proportion of influence in political affairs. The agricultural, the mechanical, and the laboring classes have little or no share in the direction of the great moneyed corporations; and from their habits and the nature of their pursuits, they are incapable of forming extensive combinations to act together with united force. Such concert of action may sometimes be produced in a single city or in a small district of country by means of personal communications with each other; but they have no regular or active correspondence with those who are engaged in similar pursuits in distant places. They have but little patronage to give the press and exercise but a small share of influence over it; they have no crowd of dependents about them who hope to grow rich without labor by their countenance and favor and who are, therefore, always ready to exercise their wishes.
The planter, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer all know that their success depends upon their own industry and economy and that they must not expect to become suddenly rich by the fruits of their toil. Yet these classes of society form the great body of the people of the United States; they are the bone and sinew of the country; men who love liberty and desire nothing but equal rights and equal laws and who, moreover, hold the great mass of our national wealth, although it is distributed in moderate amounts among the millions of freemen who possess it. But, with overwhelming numbers and wealth on their side, they are in constant danger of losing their fair influence in the government, and with difficulty maintain their just rights against the incessant efforts daily made to encroach upon them.
The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control; from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining in the different states and which are employed altogether for their benefit; and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will, in the end, find that the most important powers of government have been given or bartered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations.
The paper money system and its natural associates, monopoly and exclusive privileges, have already struck their roots deep in the soil; and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil. The men who profit by the abuses and desire to perpetuate them will continue to besiege the halls of legislation in the general government as well as in the states and will seek, by every artifice, to mislead and deceive the public servants. It is to yourselves that you must look for safety and the means of guarding and perpetuating your free institutions. In your hands is rightfully placed the sovereignty of the country and to you everyone placed in authority is ultimately responsible. It is always in your power to see that the wishes of the people are carried into faithful execution, and their will, when once made known, must sooner or later be obeyed. And while the people remain, as I trust they ever will, uncorrupted and incorruptible and continue watchful and jealous of their rights, the government is safe, and the cause of freedom will continue to triumph over all its enemies.
But it will require steady and persevering exertions on your part to rid yourselves of the iniquities and mischiefs of the paper system and to check the spirit of monopoly and other abuses which have sprung up with it and of which it is the main support. So many interests are united to resist all reform on this subject that you must not hope the conflict will be a short one nor success easy. My humble efforts have not been spared during my administration of the government to restore the constitutional currency of gold and silver; and something, I trust, has been done toward the accomplishment of this most desirable object. But enough yet remains to require all your energy and perseverance. The power, however, is in your hands, and the remedy must and will be applied if you determine upon it.”
Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
Bankers’ Worst Nightmare: Richard Vigilante – Jim McTague, Barron’s
CONGRESS, HOLD YOUR HORSES! SURE, EVERYONE except the perps favors better regulation on Wall Street. But we need more efficient and intelligent policing than what the current House and Senate financial-reform bills offer.
The aptly named Richard Vigilante, who recently co-wrote a book called Panic with Minneapolis-based hedge-fund legend Andrew Redleaf, suggests this approach: Force all firms managing other people’s money to publish their investment positions in detail before the market opens; this would include hedge funds. Then, the short sellers could punish ineptness before it spreads by betting heavily against a particular institution’s stupid decisions.
“Bankers would hate it. It’s their worst nightmare,” says Vigilante, whom I met with at Firehook bakery on Washington’s Farragut Square. If the system had been in place in 2006, short sellers would have stamped out the smoldering subprime mania before it had a chance to spread, he asserts.
His suggestion is both brilliant and a model of simplicity — it could protect consumers against all kinds of risky financial products — but it will never become reality.
Bankers would scream about the need to protect their proprietary-trading information. And, as was the case with health-insurance “reform,” Congress is bent on ramming a bill, no matter how flawed, through the legislative sausage works in order to mollify an uncommonly angry electorate before Nov. 2. To entertain new ideas at this juncture, even good ones, would upset the ambitious timetable.
In the present system, the more unrestricted the banks are, the more money they can generate “out of thin air,” and the more damage they can inflict upon the wealth-generation process. FULL ARTICLE by Frank Shostak
The expansion of international “supply chains” from Asian factories to American consumers has certainly created global trade imbalances and international currency flows that are not necessarily sustainable over the long run. A readjustment of the world economy, not a slackening demand for inexpensive consumer products, strikes me as the greatest threat to the Wal-Mart business model. And, for its part, the chain is already adapting to new circumstances. In recent years, Wal-Mart has expanded well beyond the borders of North America into Europe, Mexico and Asia. It imports factory goods from China and also operates its own retail stores there. But the stores look very different from their American counterparts. In Kunming, near the border with Myanmar, Wal-Mart rents space inside its store to independent vendors, who pay $1.20 per day to hawk Yunnan coffee, tobacco bongs filled with local rice wine and condiments made from eggplant, soybeans and ginger. The atmosphere is “festival-like, even chaotic,” as vendors shout out their wares, sometimes through loudspeakers or while pounding on drums, and customers crowd a stall to fish pears out of a solution of sugar, salt and licorice root–”a Wal-Mart store sans Wal-Martism,” according to sociologist Eileen Otis. Another Chinese employee explains his loyalty to the company by suggesting that Sam Walton was, in fact, a student of Chairman Mao who “adopted the revolutionary strategy of ‘the countryside encircling the city.’&nthinsp;” And so the revolution continues.
How Wal-Mart’s Ruthlessness Led to Its Undoing – Jefferson Decker, Nation
Monday, Labor Day, is the occasion for labor unions to celebrate the contributions their members have made to American prosperity.
With union membership down to 8% of private-sector employees, unions are eager to sign up new members in order to swell their ranks, replenish their treasuries and infuse new contributions into union-sponsored pension plans, many of which are underfunded.
In the process of recruiting new members, some labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, don’t mind twisting and omitting facts.
The AFL-CIO’s Web site reads, “Because they have a voice at work, union workers have a ‘union advantage’ in benefits and are much more likely to have pensions-and good pensions-than nonunion workers.”
What the federation and some unions don’t tell prospective members is that collectively-bargained pension plans generally have lower levels of funding than do plans offered by employers unilaterally for nonunion employees. This disparity is evident in the data for 2006, the latest year for which complete reporting is available. And that was before the 2008-09 stock market crash, which unions cite as a convenient excuse for underfunding.
There may be reasons for the unorganized to join a union, but retirement security should be the least of them.
Unions also don’t disclose that their internal retirement plans for officers and staff are usually better funded than the plans for the rank-and-file, for which union officers are responsible. The numbers demonstrate as much.
While a pension plan need not be fully funded at any given time to be stable, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 draws a line at 80%. It considers funds with less than 80% of needed assets, as determined actuarially, to be in “endangered” status.
Among large plans-those with 100 or more employees-35% of non-union plans were fully funded in 2006, as against 17% for union plans. While 86% of non-union funds met the 80% test, only 59% of union funds did.
Similarly, while only 1% of non-union plans had less than 65% of the required assets, called “critical” status in the 2006 Act, 13% of union plans were in “critical” shape.
The problems with large collectively-bargained pension plans extend to small plans, those with fewer than 100 participants. Of non-union plans, 61% were fully funded, compared to 25% of union plans. Both union and non-union plans small plans were about as likely as their larger counterparts to have funding ratios below 80%. Fifteen percent of the small union plans were in critical condition, more than twice the ratio of small non-union plans.
Many rank-and-file plans may be in poor condition, but an analysis of 30 staff and officer pension plans in unions with some of the largest 46 rank-and-file pension plans shows that plans for some unions’ own employees are doing fine. Although the rank-and-file plans had 79% of funds needed to cover their obligations, officer plans were on average 93% funded.
The failing union pension plans appear to be one reason that labor has been lobbying for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Its “card check” provision would take away workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote during a union representation elections; and a requirement for binding arbitration if a newly-certified union and the employer cannot agree on a contract would force the parties to abide by a contract for two years as determined by government-appointed arbitrators.
The arbitrators would have the power to force newly-unionized firms into underfunded multi-employer pension plans. That would be an easy way to augment their coffers without putting a new burden on workers already covered.
Carl Pecoraro, president of the Teamsters Local Union 507 and chairman, Board of Trustees, Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Health & Welfare and Pension Funds, wrote in a March 9, 2009 letter, “Especially important to me as a trustee, EFCA would strengthen defined benefit plans by fueling broad-based economic growth and increased plan participation from newly-organized union members.”
If an arbitration panel were to require a company to join an underfunded multiemployer plan, the firm could become liable for pensions of workers and retirees other employers. That would be manifestly unjust, and would inflict grievous financial harm on workers in the newly organized firm, because their pensions would be at risk.
With fewer workers joining unions, the collectively-bargained multiemployer pension funds are characterized by an increasing number of retirees supported by fewer younger workers. Such plans can survive only through new contributions. This is why unions will do anything to recruit new members – including forcing workers into underfunded pension plans through mandatory arbitration.
Union leaders have contributed to this problem by negotiating for pension plans that are more generous than can be afforded, often seeking pension increases in the face of consistent employer complaints about costs. While unions have many incentives to bargain for increased benefits, they have few incentives to ensure that there will be adequate funding for the promised pensions.
At bottom, the real problem is the opacity of union pension financing and the lack of accountability required of union leaders. Union members have few assurances that the trustees of their pension funds are acting in their best interest. The continued poor status of union-run pension plans suggests that union trustees are not diligently striving to protect the stable financial futures they have advertised.
Labor Day is a time to celebrate workers – and to make sure they have the retirement security that they deserve.
Washington’s enormous expansion of the government’s spending share of GDP to over 40 percent — including Bailout Nation, TARP, and government takeovers in numerous industries — is eerily reminiscent of Old Europe’s old policies. In a twist of irony, Europe seems to be moving toward a lower-tax-and-spend-and-regulate, Ronald Reagan–type approach, while we in the U.S. are regressing to the failed socialist model of Old Europe. This makes no sense.
Here’s the clincher: Year-to-date, Dow Jones stocks are off 7 percent, while China stocks are up 71 percent. The world index is up 4 percent. Emerging markets are up 25 percent. They’re all beating us. None of this is good.
We’re going the wrong way. That’s why stock markets are not voting for the United States anymore.
Washington Is Going the Wrong Way – Larry Kudlow, CNBC
Last week saw the publication of some of the scariest numbers so far in this recession. Britain suffered its worst quarterly fall in GDP since 1958: a year when Harold Macmillan was prime minister and the Soviet Union was launching Sputnik satellites into space. The 2.4% fall in the first quarter of 2009 was equivalent to about 10% at an annual rate.
In America the unemployment rate hit its highest level since 1983: when the American embassy in Beirut was bombed and Michael Jackson first performed the “Moonwalk”. Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, has estimated America has lost 6.5m jobs since the start of this recession.
To make matters worse Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of the state of California, declared a state of fiscal emergency in his state. The fiscal plight of the American states adds to the ballooning of federal debt discussed in this week’s cover story.
Under such circumstances it is not surprising that Stuart Thomson, the economist at Ignis, talks of a “WWW recovery”. He is not referring to the internet but to the pattern of apparent recovery followed by a decline back into the mire.
After nine months of severe pain it should be apparent to all that the recovery, when it comes, will not be easy. The economies of the developed world are in a dire state.
With the benefit of hindsight it would have been better to take some pain in the short term, rather than the sustained torture by a thousand cuts. For example, letting some large banks and auto makers go under would no doubt have been unpleasant. But if the destruction of old business helped pave the way for the generation of new ones, the longer-term effect could be beneficial.
Of course, it makes sense to minimise the extent of human suffering. Those who lose their jobs should, as far as possible, get help in finding work in new or expanding economic sectors.
In any case, the current recession is hardly painless. As Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard, points out in his blog the level of American unemployment now is much higher than the Obama administration forecasted in January. This is despite its huge stimulus plan.
Better to take misery in the short run than face a protracted period of unpleasantness.
Better to Face Our Economic Pain Now – Daniel Ben-Ami, Fund Strategy
Old habits die hard—especially bad ones, and especially when they’re backed by well-heeled lobbyists and a powerful congressional committee chairman.
It was hard not to draw that conclusion over the past week, as Wall Street and Washington alike prepared for President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated June 17 speech outlining the Administration’s proposals to overhaul financial regulations. Despite the promise of tough reforms from the President and his top economic officials, the Administration—in its decision to put off tough political battles over regulatory turf and reining in executive pay—appeared to be backing away from the stiffest moves that were on the table.
With the worst of the crisis appearing to recede, the political will to take on those tough constituencies appeared to be fading as well. With it may go a once-in-a-generation opportunity to aggressively tackle some badly needed changes in the U.S. financial system.
“Is the drive for reform losing steam? Yes, absolutely,” says Daniel Clifton, a Washington-based policy analyst at institutional broker Strategas Research Partners. With Congress signaling that it is unlikely to act on the President’s financial-system reforms until the fall, Clifton and other observers warn that this week’s regulatory plan could be highly vulnerable to attack for five months. Short of an unexpectedly sharp return of crisis in the financial sector, which would force the Administration and Congress to conclude that the costs of retaining much of the status quo intact are too high, Clifton believes the push for reform “will lose a lot more momentum by October.”
The aim of the Administration’s regulatory plan, largely developed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is to create a more effective and powerful regulatory structure that would have a better chance of preventing the sort of unseen and out-of-control financial excesses that brought about the current global crisis. In an op ed article in the June 15 Washington Post, Geithner and Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council, said their goal is “to create a more stable regulatory regime that is flexible and effective; that is able to secure the benefits of financial innovation while guarding the system against its own excess.” The plan will try to rein in systemic risk by “raising capital and liquidity requirements for all institutions, with more stringent requirements for the largest and most interconnected firms.” It will give the Federal Reserve the power to unwind financial holding companies whose failure could threaten the world’s economy. And it will try to strengthen consumer and investor protections on products ranging from “credit cards to annuities.”
Is Obama Flubbing the Financial Fix? – Jane Sasseen, BusinessWeek
The idea of war for and on another planet