Dodd Proposes “Super-Regulator”
Indiscriminate.
That’s what Senator Dodd’s proposal is. He wants to create an entirely new regulatory agency to replace the Fed (a good idea) and the FDIC (a bad idea).
Excerpt:
“A key Senate lawmaker is readying legislation that would dramatically redraw how the financial system is regulated, setting the chamber on a collision course with both the House of Representatives and the Obama administration, which have championed markedly different approaches.
The bill, which is being readied by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), would strip almost all bank-supervision powers from the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., according to people familiar with the matter. In their place, the bill would create a new agency in charge of supervising all banks and bank-holding companies, even the country’s largest and most complex institutions.
Mr. Dodd’s proposal also would create a powerful council of regulators, overseen by an independent White House appointee, charged with monitoring risks to the financial system.”
There are lots of proposals floating around, and very few of them — this one included — actually addresses the underlying cause of the crisis . . .
>
Source:
Clash Looms on Banks
DAMIAN PALETTA
WSJ, Nov. 5 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125738375151929771.html
November 5th, 2009 at 7:20 am
[...] Senator Dodd’s plan for a Super-Regulator, another brilliant idea. (TBP) [...]
November 5th, 2009 at 7:29 am
We could staff a super-agency with Goldman execs.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:34 am
This is an excellent solution, create a new agency that is understaffed, and in-experienced to do the most important job of the moment. Pit them against money machines who thrive on loop-holes, while the new employee’s are still learning how too thread a needle. On second thought, this is probably the lobbyists dream.
C0-ordinated bubble blowing, UK threw another 50 billion into money supply, lol, while we give more unemployment bennies and housing credits. U know stimulus 2010 is right around the corner.
Bruce, fwiw, on medicare, i care for my mother 73 with alzheimer and my 97 yr. old grandmother, slight dimentia, medicare is a dream compared to any other insurance company I have ever dealt with. What I like is that it is fair and black and white, everyone in the system knows what is and is not paid for, so you end up getting what the doctors believe is correct. All the doctors I’ve talked to b and moan about prices paid, yet, none have opted out, and all have spiffy offices and lot’s of employee’s.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:37 am
torrie-amos:
Pop a big bowl of popcorn…if 21% cuts occur, you will at least be kept entertained.
I finished med school in 1977. It is only now going to get interesting from this aspect of things.
….Er, houses are always a good investment, right? Medicare will always be there, right?
…my friend, just sit back and watch…
November 5th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Dodd is an utter and absolute treasoness moron – hope Peter Schiff gets his job.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Dodd is desperate to look like he is doing something constructive to preserve his job. The message Tuesday was to the incumbents regardless of what all the pundits are saying. Incumbents beware.. they all should go with few exceptions.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:48 am
@Moss
“they all should go with few exceptions.”
Beautifully stated. +1
November 5th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Does Ladbroke’s, yet, have odds on who’ll be introducing the Legislation that creates the ‘Handicapper General’ position?
“THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General…”
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
Much in the same way People think Orwell was ‘early’(1984), maybe Vonnegut was ‘late’(2081) –esp. w/ Idiots, like Dodd “desperate to look like he is doing something constructive to preserve his job.” (good point, Moss)
November 5th, 2009 at 9:01 am
If Bloomberg lost in NYC which he almost did, it would have been a remarkable message. This would have been clearly interpreted by the MSM since it would have no ambiguity. A real ‘no spin zone’ would have been established by the voting populace.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Bruce, congrats on med school. Are you still a doctor? I’m seriously interested, what is your take on it? Those have been my expereinces, ie, positive. I’ve dealt with a pacemaker replacement on gram, we paid 15% of the cost, and 15% of cost of emergency blood clot in the brain, which came and went quickly and she was released in two days. Except for mom’s regular check-ups we receive no help, she is in mid late stages and still at home. Do I believe we have the money for all of these things, heck no, yet, both did pay into the system.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:17 am
@Moss – city vs. national level is completely different. Nearly 75% of voters actually like Bloomberg, but 20% voted against him because he flip-flopped on term limits.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:26 am
didn’t bloomberg factually change the law so he could run again? thus, even though they liked him I was not surprised, blatant example of money and power, things folks hate right now, hate motivates
November 5th, 2009 at 10:01 am
“There are lots of proposals floating around, and very few of them — this one included — actually addresses the underlying cause of the crisis . . .”
Thats the principle clue that an idea was created by a politician. The primary goals of any proposal by a politician is increase political support, increase power for him/her and their base, and gain access and control of discretionary funds.
Actually solving the problem would hinder all of the above, as if there was no longer a problem, there would be no more opportunity to ‘correct’ it by putting his political meat hooks into it.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
@wally Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 8:14 am : “We could staff a super-agency with Goldman execs.”
Corzine is looking ….
this guy Doddreally hates wonderful Fed. But this proposal is a joke. So i wonder what is he after…
November 5th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Intrigued to see India buy 20 metric tons of gold at this price level. Makes an interesting commentary on both the price of gold, as well as the actions of the Fed
November 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I recommend kkeeping the G-20 meeting in Scotland (Nov 6-7) on one’s radar screen:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6903707.ece
Interesting tidbit from the link above:
“Several politically sensitive issues will require international agreement, including trade deficits and exchange rates. China’s refusal to be rushed into appreciating its currency has already led to international tensions, for example. Moreover, to cut trade gaps, export giants such as China, Japan and Germany would be required to promote domestic consumption and rely less on foreign demand. Countries with big trade deficits, principally the United States, would have to boost their savings rates.”
At the G-20, the USG representatives will be looking at this “boost their savings rate” with particular disdain. The USG’s fundamental interest is to keep spending in the most scatter shot and manic way. It is very frightening to contemplate the fact the core interests of US citizens are opposed to the core interests of the US govt. When the State can no longer fund the War Machine’s pursuits abroad, I will be somewhere else…like Oxapampa or Pozuzo, under an assumed name. Something like Johnny Pacheco.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Barry forgot to mention this rider to the bill:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congress_approves_500_billion_for
November 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Dodd would require an entire super-regulatory agency just to monitor his own indiscretions. I hope Schiff cleans his clock next fall. If there is any hope for humanity, this man will not win another election.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:09 am
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-to-markets-let-the-bubble-blow-2009-11-04
Fed to markets: Let the bubble blow
“By standing pat, the Fed and Ben Bernanke risk a further surge in gold prices, probably above $1,100 an ounce, and oil prices, probably close to $90 a barrel. The dollar, while it’s fallen substantially, is still well off its lows against the euro and the British pound seen last year. This bubble has further to go.
The Fed is playing a dangerous game of chicken with investors and with the jobless. Unless it helps let the air out of some of this rally soon, the drubbing the market will take once things do turn could be vicious.
For now, it’s steady as she goes for Bernanke, gold bubble or stock rally be damned. Friday will be a pivotal day for investors. ”
….Chris Dodd does not inspire confidence from me either….I wonder what his peers think of his ideas…
November 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Anyone who buys Dodd’s feint is asking for it.
The ONLY reason he is doing this is to forestall ANYTHING being done, making the legislation so all encompassing it would never be made law let alone enforced.
This is the typical political shenanigan our so-called elected incumbents are norotious for: propose legislation that will take years, decades to wind its way thru the halls of government getting clippes and neutered along the way, that way maintaining the status quo.
I cannot believe anyone on this board would fall for this and call it a great idea.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I think BR, and many of the commentators, are missing the point of the super-regulator idea.
The agency will not replace the Fed and the FDIC. The Fed will still exist and do monetary policy. The FDIC will still exist and do resolutions. But there will be one regulator to do bank examinations and supervision. Right now, the OCC examines and supervises national banks, the OTS does thrifts, the Fed and states do member state banks, and the FDIC and states do non-member state banks.
A super-regulator would examine and supervise all banks. The point is to eliminate the race-to-the-bottom problem and forum shopping (which was particularly a big problem with (a) thrifts, because the OTS was bleeding to death for assets and so got really lax; and (b) states, who also wanted charters, see, e.g., Georgia). Also, note that most banks that have failed this year have been state banks. That would be the fault of the Fed, FDIC, and state regulators. (Of course WaMu, IndyMac, etc, sort of drowns them all in assets, and whose fault was that? OTS.)
November 5th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Mark posted:
“THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.
2081,huh? Vonnegut sure was an optimist.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:37 am
A super regulator is what Harry Markopolos recommended in his testimony to the House Financial Services hearing on the Madoff investigations.
Markopolos testimony
http://cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15082