Skip to main content

More thoughts on Fed oversight

On Monday we talked about the government's recently proposed plan to further Federal Reserve oversight of the financial markets and create a regulatory superagency to oversee "both investor protection and market stability" (LA Times quote).

I thought we'd follow up on this with some facts, and a bit of commentary from both sides. You'll hear the bright side, and get a view of the downside to this recent proposal. Shall we begin?

We'll start with an overview that lays out the nuts and bolts. Here's the Economist's recent take on the "Paulson plan" to revamp the US system of financial regulation.

"The Treasury plan envisages several phases of reform. Short-term goals include the expansion of the President's Working Group (PWG), now a club for only select large regulators, and the creation of a federal Mortgage Origination Commission.

This would consolidate oversight of a process that has wreaked havoc on balance sheets. It is also seen as a partial solution to the problem of dodgy securitisation, as the commission would grade the underwriting of loans going into pools. Critics point out, however, that it would create another layer of bureaucracy, since regulation of mortgage brokers and many lenders would stay with the states.

In the long run, say between two to eight years, Mr Paulson hopes to see a new regulatory architecture, with today's hotch-potch folded into three “objectives-based” agencies that some see as similar to the Australian system. That means a remodelled Federal Reserve with an eye on overall market stability; a prudential regulator for banks and thrifts, which would mean the demise of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS); and a business-conduct agency, taking in much of the SEC's oversight of disclosure and the like."

Now, the Economist piece notes that the rationale behind this unifying plan is to correct the present set-up which is "Balkanized and inefficient". But then, this sounds like the same line that you hear whenever people are arguing in favor of a new regulatory scheme or a roll-up and enlargement of an existing framework.

Indeed, this is the view offered by writer, Ian Welsh, over at the Huffington Post. I don't usually bother to read this site, but I was caught by his article title, which had a certain ring of truth to it. Here's an excerpt from, "The Paulson Plan: Doing What He Wanted to Do Anyway":

"So Paulson has come out with a plan. It's primarily a reorganization plan, pushing the Thrift regulator into the SEC, creating a federal mortgage regulator, giving the Fed the right to inspect the new firms that now have access to its liquidity. There's some talk about objectives based It's almost always a bad sign when the primary "reform" is to create new agencies or merge old ones and Krugman is right to ridicule it as The Dilbert Strategy."

Welsh goes on to outline his view of the proposed regulation scheme and its shortcomings, but does not question the idea of Fed regulation itself. He seems more concerned from a pragmatic view, that the plan will not make the needed corrections, and criticizes the plan as a meaningless "shock therapy" mandate designed to push through long-desired legisition.

So I went looking for upsides to the plan, and checked out a recent Bloomberg article on the Fed's new market authority. It turns out almost everyone there was down on it too.

Some excerpts:

``It would be Congress and the president essentially giving a blank check to a regulator over which they have very little power,'' said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland in Baltimore and a former CFTC official. Paulson's proposal will ``allow Wall Street to do whatever they want until a crisis occurs, at which point the Fed would intervene.''

"Treasury's proposal would ``create a more coherent supervisory scheme'' by ending ``some of the inconsistencies arising from today's patchwork system,'' Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC, a Jersey City, New Jersey-based research firm, said in a report.

Still, expanding the Fed's role to stabilize markets would exacerbate the ``moral hazard problems'' stemming from the central bank's decision to lend money to investment banks after the near collapse of Bear Stearns, said Crandall, who used to work at the New York Fed."

But don't worry, I found a quote in favor of the plan to merge regulatory agencies...from SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.

"Just as systemic risk cannot be neatly parceled along outdated regulatory lines, the overarching objective of investor protection can't be fully achieved if it fails to encompass derivatives, insurance, and new instruments that straddle today's regulatory divides,'' Cox said in a statement on March 29."

Here's more debate on the plan in a recent Bloomberg video collecting soundbites from various commenters. You'll hear comments from John Snow, Arthur Levitt, Harvey Kauffman, Michael Oxley, Marshall Front, Jeremy Siegel, and others.

Most of the government guys and former regulators seem to favor the proposal (or parts of it), while Marshall Front likens the plan to common after-the-fact regulatory proposals which end up having adverse unintended consequences for business and the economy.

So far, I'm having a hard time finding anyone (besides the regulators and the investment banks) who's in favor of the Paulson plan for increased Fed oversight of the financial markets. It turns out even the Fed is giving this plan the thumbs down.

So in the interest of lending an ear to some added voices, let me link to some additional commentary from writers and bloggers who have been looking at this issue. You may find some positive outlook in the blog search link I'll include, but you may have to sift for it.

"Paulson's Injustice to the Trial and Error Economy" - Seeking Alpha.

"Don't discount Paulson" - LA Times.

"Giving the Fed more (less?) regulatory power" - Marginal Revolution.

"Stemming the Tide" - BMB and Minyanville's Andrew Jeffrey.

"Market Manipulation Under Veil of Secrecy?" - Mr. Practical.

"Paulson's Civic Robbery to Finance Hyperinflation" - John Browne.

Various blogger posts on the Paulson plan - Google blog search.

Popular posts from this blog

Seth Klarman: Margin of Safety (pdf)

Welcome, readers! Signup for free email updates at the Finance Trends Newsletter . Update: PDF links removed due to DMCA notice. Please see our extensive Klarman book notes below. New visitors, please check the Finance Trends home page for all new posts. Here's something for anyone who has been trying to get a look at Seth Klarman's now famous, and out of print, 1991 investment book, Margin of Safety .  My knowledge of value investing is pretty much limited to what I've read in Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor (the book which originally popularized the investment concept of a "Margin of Safety"), so check out the wisdom from Seth Klarman and other investing greats in our related posts below. You can also go straight to Ronald Redfield's Margin of Safety book notes .    Related posts: 1. Seth Klarman interviews and Margin of Safety notes     2. Seth Klarman: Lessons from 2008 3. Investing Lessons from Sir John Templeton 4.

Moneyball: How the Red Sox Win Championships

Welcome, readers . T o get the first look at brand new posts (like the following piece) and to receive our exclusive email list updates, please subscribe to the Finance Trends Newsletter .   The Boston Red Sox won their fourth World Series title of t he 21st century this we ek. Having won their first Se ries in 86 years back in 200 4, the last decade-plus has marked a very strong return to form for one of baseball's oldest big league clubs. So how did they do it? Quick background: in late 2002, team own er and hedge fund manager, John W. Henry (with his partners ) bought the Boston Red Sox and its historic Fenway Park for a reported sum of $ 695 million. Henry and Co. quickly set out to find their ideal General Manager (GM) to help turn around their newly acquired, ailing ship. This brings us to one of my fav orite scenes from the 2011 film , Moneyball , in which John W. Henry (played by Ar liss Howard) attempts to woo Oakland A's GM Billy Beane (Brad Pi

William O'Neil Interview: How to Buy Winning Stocks

Investor's B usiness Daily founder and veteran stock trader, William O'Neil share d his trading methods and insights on buying winning stocks in an in-depth IBD radio interview. Here are some highlights from William O'Neil's interview with IBD: William O'Neil's interest in the stock market began when he started working as a young adult.  "I say many times that I didn't get that much out of college. I didn't have much interest in the stock market until I graduated from college. When I got married, I had to look out into the future and get more serious. The investment world had some appeal and that's when I started studying it. I became a stock broker after I got out of the Air Force."    He moved to Los Angeles and started work in a stock broker's office with twenty other guys. When their phone leads from ads didn't pan out, O'Neil would take the leads and drive down to visit the prospective customers in person.