Thoughts & Comments
The Worst Thing Of All About The Financial Reform Bill
It's not the CFPA, it's not the Volcker Rule, its not . . .

Thomas Brown  ( about me )
Posted 06/04/2010

Banking executives like Jamie Dimon are trying to reconcile themselves to the inevitability of the financial reform bill by saying they “agree with 80%” of what’s in it. He seems to think that that ought to count as good enough, and is the best that can reasonably be hoped for, in any event.   

Jamie! It’s a 1,400-page bill! Twenty percent of 1,400 works out 280 pages of what are, even you seem to admit by implication, some pretty dumb ideas. The proposed, do-goodish, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, for example would have the effect of restricting the flow of credit of consumers and making it more expensive. How that’s supposed to benefit consumers, I don’t know.  The requirement that lenders retain at least a 5% interest in loans they securitize figures to backfire from an accounting standpoint, and might squash the securitization market. And the Volcker rule and the Lincoln amendment, which each curtails banks’ ability to trade for their own accounts, would make financial institutions less stable by restricting their ability to hedge their risks.

Any of these provisions are bad enough to merit opposing the entire bill, in my view. In the meantime, the 80% that’s said to be unobjectionable still isn’t all that great. For example, the bill doesn’t include provisions that would, say, prevent a re-run of the chaos that followed Lehman’s collapse in September of 2008, should some similar collapse occur in the future. Nor does it reform regulation of the basic cause of the whole mess: mortgage lending. Fannie and Freddie will retain their oddball public-private status. 

But maybe the worst part of the bill is one that few people seem to be talking about: its lack of preemption of state law regulating financial serves companies.

It could lead to chaos. Under the new law, large banks won’t just have to comply with federal rules and regulations (including ones put forth by this misbegotten CFPA), they’ll have to comply with the rules and regs of each and every state they operate in. It will be a nightmare of duplication and useless paperwork. Borrowers are the ones who will lose out in the end. 

Take, for instance, what’s likely to happen in the mortgage lending. In the aftermath of the housing crackup, most states won’t be able to resist the temptation to “crack down” on mortgage lenders by enacting new laws to regulate them. Some states might outlaw, say, option ARMs or no-doc loans. Others might introduce new licensing requirements. Or minimum downpayment or disclosure requirements.

On an individual basis, each of the rules might be sensible. But how is a large national lender supposed to keep track of them all and assure compliance in each and every state? Faced with the added expense and potential penalties, lenders will either a) reduce the breadth of their product line down to a few, plain-vanilla offerings, b) withdraw from certain markets outright, or c) both. Translation: credit availability to consumers will go down while its cost goes up. 

And for what? What purpose will be served by adding a redundant layer of state regulation on top of federal regulation? It’s not as if the mortgage lending business is so different in Oregon is so different than it is in, say, Delaware that regulation is best left to local officials. Just the reverse. Mortgage lending has shown itself to be a national business over the past few decades, as a handful of banks have emerged to dominate the business. And now those companies are going to have to ensure they’re in compliance with 50 different sets of rules plus what the feds require? That’s crazy.

In card lending, the problem will be the same except perhaps worse. (Lawmakers seem to especially love to tee off on card lenders).  Auto lenders, as well. As I say, none of this will make consumer credit cheaper or more plentiful. 

I’m at a loss to understand why so many people in Congress believe this bill will help consumers and stabilize the financial system. It will do just the opposite. One of the main reasons why is the regulatory chaose the bill’s lack of preemption will unleash.

What do you think? Let me know!


  Add your comment



kashy Posted On 6/5/2010 8:51:15 AM

Yawn, Tom, your post = same old drivel.... Has everyone left your firm? you are the only one who posts here anymore.

Phantom Gremlin Posted On 6/8/2010 3:30:14 AM

Bah. Nobody wants any "skin in the same" any more. You're suggesting that a mere 5% retained interest in securitized loans will somehow cause hardship!? How about the holding the originator to the first 20% of a loss? That might get them to sharpen a few pencils and do a little due diligence before writing so many garbage loans. I'd love to see the country return to "a few plain-vanilla offerings". Most of the garbage was created because there were obscenely huge fees to be extracted, not because it was in any way good for the country.

Dan Koppell Posted On 6/10/2010 2:15:09 PM

Watch the video below!

Dan Koppell Posted On 6/10/2010 2:15:39 PM

Copy past link!
Ad for inter-arch
Ad for Bankstocks is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.