• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama Financial Regulation Plan: Empowering Regulators, Not Consumers

    After months of internal debate, President Obama today released his much-anticipated plan for reforming the nation’s financial regulatory system. The 85-page document is nothing if not comprehensive, containing a grab bag of changes covering almost every aspect of the troubled financial industry. Taken as a whole, the changes would trigger the largest increase in government intervention in the sector since the Great Depression, to the detriment of consumers. What’s worse, the proposed changes are unlikely to resolve the real problems facing the industry.

    Among the key provisions of the plan:

    * Systemic Regulation. The Fed, as advised by a newly-created “Council of Regulators,” would be charged with regulating “systemic risks” to the financial system. Yet, while the Fed’s power would be extensive — reaching even to private equity and venture capital firms — it is difficult or impossible to define or identify systemic risks before they appear (as argued by David John here).

    * Consumer Regulator. A new “Consumer Financial Protection Agency” would be created to regulate mortgage lending, credit cards, and other forms of consumer finance. But while fraud and deception should be severely punished, few argue that fraud and deception had much to do with the current crisis. Worse, the proposed new agency is likely to limit consumer choice — by banning disfavored products — rather than increase it. In any case, existing agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, should be charged with this issue, rather than create a new regulatory bureaucracy.

    * Resolution Authority. The FDIC would be granted the power to close and wind down the affairs of non-bank financial firms (upon approval of the Treasury Department). Currently, the FDIC only has such power over banks which it directly insures. This authority, however, would provide enormous — and potentially dangerous – power to the FDIC, providing it immense discretion over how institutions are reorganized, and the disposition of their assets. The recent government-controlled bankruptcy proceeding of Chrysler should give warning as to how this power could be recognized. Moreover, as outlined earlier this year by the Obama Administration, it would institutionalize the granting of bailouts to failing institutions.

    Far better to use the long-established bankruptcy process — with its legal rules and protections — in closing down financial institutions. If necessary, minor changes could be made to the current bankruptcy code so as to ensure that firms are wound down in an orderly manner, while preserving the process and rule of law essential to a fair, and non-political, resolution. (One proposal for such a system was recently floated by House Republicans.

    Of course, there are some positive aspects to the Obama plan. He recommends eliminating remaining limits on interstate banking. And, certainly, there are real problems in the current system that need to be addressed. But the plan offered today puts far too much faith in regulators to guide markets to where they should be. That is consistent neither with economics nor, given the role of many federal policymakers in contributing to the current crisis, with recent history. A better plan — one that empowers consumers, rather than regulators – is needed.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Obama Financial Regulation Plan: Empowering Regulators, Not Consumers

    1. Marik, HI says:

      Perhaps you haven't noticed that private insurance companies try everything they can (including the small print) to keep their policies and requirements unknown. Or maybe you haven't noticed that the failures of these companies, after at least 50 years, are too obvious to ignore any longer.

      The "consumer" has no "control" over private health insurance companies, except by refusing to deal with them at all. And that's not control.

    2. JohnRDC says:

      I'm going to read the plan, but for now it sounds as if it could have been worse. The Fed mandate could be troubling, but in effect the Fed has had "systemic risk" responsibilities at least since Penn Central, and probably earlier. The Obama proposal will provide a further legal underpinning for what the Fed does best: i.e., fly by the seat of the pants.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.