A conservative Volcker Rule
The GOP needs a broader, tougher financial-reform agenda.

Reuters

Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker listens to comments during a panel discussion, on how the current financial crisis has changed the role of central banks, at the National Press Club in Washington, Oct. 11, 2010.

Article Highlights

  • Republicans don’t like the Volcker rule, but they need an alternative financial-reform agenda

    Tweet This

  • Reining in Fannie, Freddie, and Feddie is an incomplete, although ideologically comfortable, financial-reform agenda for the GOP.

    Tweet This

Republicans generally don’t like the now-adopted Volcker rule, which prevents banks with federally insured deposits from trading for their own profit — or much else about the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law, for that matter. Recall that Mitt Romney pledged to repeal the whole magilla if he became president. Romney didn’t win, of course, and it’s no more likely that President Obama would ever sign a repeal of Dodd-Frank than it is that he would repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But that doesn’t mean Republicans don’t need an alternative financial-reform agenda, especially considering that the U.S. has averaged a financial crisis every half-dozen years the past few decades. So far for the GOP, it’s pretty much been about the three “Fs”: Fannie, Freddie, and “Feddie” — to prevent future bubbles, shutter the two government mortgage giants and shackle the U.S. central bank.

Yet it’s hard to see what that approach does to reform a Too Big to Fail financial system of growing size, concentration, and complexity. As analysis from the Dallas Fed recently pointed out, fewer than a dozen megabanks — just 0.2 percent of all banking organizations — control two-thirds of the assets in the U.S. banking industry. And if international accounting rules — which count a wider range of derivatives — were applied to U.S. banks, over half of all bank assets would be held by just three institutions: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup. These megabanks, as Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher puts it, are each capable “through a series of missteps by their management of seriously damaging the vitality, resilience, and prosperity that has personified the U.S. economy.”

That was true before Dodd-Frank, and it’s still true today. There is no reason to think that the next time a megabank finds itself in a financial pinch, government won’t find a way to come riding to the rescue in the name of systemic stability and panic prevention. “The history of big bank failure is a history of the state blinking before private creditors,” notes the Bank of England’s Andrew Haldane. But extraordinary measures by scared lawmakers may not even be necessary: Dodd-Frank allows a failed megabank, through the law’s “orderly liquidation authority,” to be kept alive for years by special U.S. Treasury financing.

There are several options that reform-minded Republicans and Democrats should consider. FDIC director and former Kansas City Fed president Thomas Hoenig has proposed a sort of super Volcker rule, which would ban banks with FDIC-insured deposits from any sort of trading or market-making, as well from owning complex securities such as the collateralized debt obligations that played a starring role in the financial crisis. Banks would be limited to well-understood activities such as commercial lending, asset management, and stock and bond underwriting. Banks would become smaller, simpler, and blessedly boring.

The Dallas Fed’s Fisher is also in favor of downsizing the megabanks and would add two additional provisions. First, limit the federal safety net — deposit insurance and the Federal Reserve’s discount window — to traditional commercial banks only. Their parent companies and non-bank affiliates would be excluded. Second, customers, creditors, and counterparties of all non-bank affiliates would have to sign a simple form acknowledging there is no federal backstop available to them.

Finally, banks should be required to finance their lending with far more shareholder equity, as opposed to money borrowed from creditors. This is how it worked in the pre-deposit-insurance era of the 19th and early 20th centuries. As Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig argue in The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong With Banking and What to Do About It, requiring banks to have an equity cushion “on the order of 20–30 percent of their total assets would make the financial system substantially safer and healthier.”

Reining in Fannie, Freddie, and Feddie is an incomplete, although ideologically comfortable, financial-reform agenda for the GOP. Next year would a good time to add ending Too Big to Fail to that list.

— James Pethokoukis, a columnist, blogs for the American Enterprise Institute.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

James
Pethokoukis
  • James Pethokoukis is a columnist and blogger at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously, he was the Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews, the opinion and commentary wing of Thomson Reuters.

    Pethokoukis was the business editor and economics columnist for U.S. News & World Report from 1997 to 2008. He has written for many publications, including The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, National Review, The Washington Examiner, USA Today and Investor's Business Daily.

    Pethokoukis is an official CNBC contributor. In addition, he has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, The McLaughlin Group, CNN and Nightly Business Report on PBS. A graduate of Northwestern University and the Medill School of Journalism, Pethokoukis is a 2002 Jeopardy! Champion.


     


    Follow James Pethokoukis on Twitter.

  • Email: James.Pethokoukis@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image Getting it right: US national security policy and al Qaeda since 2011
image Net neutrality rundown: What the NPRM means for you
image The Schuette decision
image Snatching failure from victory in Afghanistan
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Event Registration is Closed
Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

Event Registration is Closed
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.