Paul Volcker Sounds Hopeful On Financial Reform, With Some Warnings As Well

White House advisor Paul Volcker sounded hopeful Tuesday about the possibility of meaningful financial regulatory reform passing this year. “I do think we have the promising possibility of getting agreement here,” he said during lunchtime address to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “I feel more optimistic now than I would have a month ago.”

But at the same time, he voiced skepticism about efforts by banking lobbyists to carve out exemptions from regulation that would force transparency on certain types of derivative trading. “Some of that stuff can be very highly profitable. So there is a strong interest in keeping as much out of the trading operations, as much out of the clearinghouse as possible,” he said. “I think we have to fight against that.”

In his prepared remarks, he offered a pointed warning about exemptions for certain types of derivatives, which are contained in both the House version of financial reform and, to a lesser extend, the bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman. “I am very leery of the pleas of the market to freely permit a large volume of customized derivatives beyond official oversight,” Volcker said. “It seems to me it is precisely those derivatives, highly engineered, highly opaque, that can get us into trouble.”

He also endorsed a White House plan to limit the growth of financial institutions relative to the size of liabilities in total liabilities in the financial system. He said he did not see as realistic proposals to force current mega-banks to shrink their size, though he was not against the idea in principle. “I think we do reasonably well to prevent it from getting more concentrated. That’s just a practical judgment,” he said, after a question from an economist in the audience. “If you can stir up some support for what you are saying, I am probably not going to be in the vanguard but I would be interested in seeing what you can do.”

Volcker’s most substantive contribution to the debate over financial regulation is the so-called “Volcker Rule,” which seeks to restrict the ability of commercial banks, which get preferential treatment from the Federal Reserve, to take risky proprietary bets. The proposal, which was endorsed by Obama in January, is not contained in the House legislation. But it is contained, in a weaker form, in the Dodd bill. His legislation calls for a study of the issue before any rules mandating separation between commercial banking and proprietary trading are written or enforced.

Related Topics: financial reform, paul volcker, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • destor23

    Study it? Okay… here’s your evidence. From the Great Depression through 1998 we had a very storng version of the Volcker rule in effect. Did it prevent market crashes? No, but it insulated the kinds of institutions that lend to Main Street from the risks of Wall Street so while we had recessions and booms and busts we did not have a complete freezing of credit for ordinary people.

    Without the Volcker rule we got… what just happened.

    Study complete.

  • nibblybits

    The most heartening point of this piece is that Volcker is now speaking for the administration (if this interview was ok’d by the WH). Further sign that the Volcker/Romer/Orzsag side of the economic team is edging out in influence over the Summers/Geithner side. Perhaps the go-big win of health care has convinced Obama that going big on regulatory reform is a political winner. It is. There is no bigger villain short of al Qaeda against which the American public is more unified than Wall Street. They are so reviled that real reform will garner even Republican support ahead of the election. (Look at how McCain is being attacked from the right for his ‘yes’ vote on TARP.)

  • nibblybits

    OT, but Michael Calderone is reporting that Karen Tumulty is moving to WashPost as national political correspondent.
    .
    Congratulations, Ms. Tumulty. Hope you class up that joint, as we’ve watched Weymouth, Brauchli and Hiatt try their best to tear it down. Guess you’ll be engaging water cooler chat with a whole host of Bush speechwriters cum op-ed columnists.

  • destor23
  • Ivy_B

    I read the comment and thought perhaps it was one of our people. A reminder of why I try not to read Politico.
    .
    KT will certainly be a bright light there – hope she blogs as well as writes, she really has the hang of it.
    .
    Happy for her; sad for us.

  • ilvoternew

    yup – KT is leavin the swamp – does that mean rusty/rustyreturns/rustydog will follow her there, given his affinity for all posts KT ?

    (i assume rustydog is male – otherwise i would think rustybitch would be a more appropriate name !)

  • ilvoternew

    *maybe this one will not need moderation*

    yup – KT is leavin the swamp – does that mean rusty/rustyreturns/rustydog will follow her there, given his affinity for all posts KT ?

    (i assume rustydog is male – otherwise i would think rustyb***h would be a more appropriate name !)

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Wow, KT moving on? Biggest personnel news in the Swamp since Wonky’s departure. Good to hear WaPo hasn’t completely lost its mind. Are Adam/Alex considered her (preemptive) replacements or can we make recommendations?

  • whiterosebuddy

    Destor,

    ICAM!! You are dead right. I hope that Dodd’s bill gets more Volcker teeth and that Obama pushes for that

  • whiterosebuddy

    Destor,

    ICAM!! You are dead right. I hope that Dodd’s bill gets more Volcker teeth and that Obama pushes for that

    Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/30/paul-volcker-sounds-hopeful-on-financial-reform-with-some-warnings-as-well/#comment-151635#ixzz0jhZ6FmWe

  • whiterosebuddy

    Nibbly

    I think HCR was the tip of the iceberg in terms of how transformative this administration is going to be. President Obama is going to go down in history for having pushed through the most far reaching and impactful legislation in over 3 decades.

    He is also going to restore America to the helm of foreign policy and global eminence.

  • gysgt213

    KT is moving? The friggin Washington Post? Oh no. I certainly do wish her luck but do you guys remember how seriously screwed up the Washington Post is?

  • stuartzechman

    This is a big deal for this blog, definitely.
    .
    Let’s see what happens.

  • stuartzechman

    do you guys remember how seriously screwed up the Washington Post is
    .
    Yes.

  • stuartzechman

    BTW I’m so revolted by the foul accusations and smears being thrown around today about Greenwald that I really don’t even want to read a damn blog.
    .
    The foul stench emanating from the “liberal” blogosphere is overwhelming today.

  • gysgt213

    I hear you Stu, Greenwald will address it.

  • stuartzechman

    The responses at DougJ in commentary are along the lines of
    .
    If he’s really innocent, then why is he so angry about being accused?
    .
    We are not our best selves.

  • formerlyjames

    Isn’t government regulation of financial markets trampling on the tea baggers rights? We will wait for Beck, et al to inform them of this revelation. Not with specifics, just with war cries. Our rights!!! What?

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “This is a big deal for this blog, definitely”
    .
    Agreed. KT’s departure is a loss (far greater than those in the past). Hard to imagine they’ll replace/have replaced her with anyone of like caliber.
    .
    As for GG, WTF? I’ll have to go seek out this stench. As usual, a hemisphere late/a yen short.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Absolutely it is a complete infringement on the Tea Bagger’s rights to sell us toxic assets at huge profit, just like HRC takes away their freedom to sell us unhealthy foods in restaurants without telling us the calories.
    .
    Tea baggers are offended at how poor (say, especially poor black) people will be going to the doctor.
    .
    Requiring financial institutions to tell us what we are signing and what we are getting into, to them, is high treason.
    .
    Why, when Thomas Jefferson was eating Doritos and drinking a super sized coke and text messaging Jesus Christ about the Communist Manifesto, he clearly said that the derivatives market was not supposed to be regulated and consumers are not supposed to be protected.
    .
    Why we’ll have Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln coming back with the second coming any day now if this happens.
    .
    How these lunatics call any of this anything but an improvement is beyond my comprehension. How they bring Christianity or our founding fathers (who wanted us to keep our distance as a government from Christianity) or Capitalism (which was not discussed much since it was a geeky theory out of England written in 1776 as a thought experiment) and have somebody think that they are sane and reasonable is shocking.
    .
    Some people will believe anything you tell them.
    .
    Damn, I could sell these SOBs the Brooklyn bridge if I were a crook.

  • formerlyjames

    patrick, you forgot to mention that most of them have no stake in regulation of financial markets, other than benefit. They rally against their own interests. In the fabled words of their Christ Savior, they know not what they do. Fool is too kind a word. Their idols benefit. They do not. They have no clue.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    OK, caught up. As if more evidence were necessary: that progressives and dems are often entirely diff. breeds of animal. On one hand, those who stand on principle and OTOH true believers, requiring church and savior. Thus, I’m not down with your use of the 1st person plural, “We are not our best selves.”

  • kbanginmotown

    stuart: You mean big f***ing deal, n’est-ce pas?
    .
    K-Tum will be missed, here. I hope that some of the old-timers will return and send her off in style. (Kinda like our farewell Talk Like a Pirate Day for Wenchy.)
    .
    As for the future? Two words: More cowbell Michael Sherer!!1!

  • stuartzechman

    Here’s my response to the author of the Greenwald/Accountability Now hit piece’s response to Greenwald’s email:

    If you used FEC filings…
    .
    …it was because Accountability Now filed that information with the FEC.
    .
    If you were able to observe “minor differences” between the FEC’s data and that available on AN’s site, then it was also because AN provided you with that data to scrutinize, which is Greenwald’s point.
    .
    Surely those “minor differences” weren’t what led you to entitle your piece “How Jane Hamsher Spends Her PAC Money“, were they? After all, they were merely “minor differences,” correct? Are these sorts of unremarkable discrepancies what caused you to “wonder how much of her outrage is real and how much is driven by the constant need to fire up donors?”
    .
    Or was it the fact that “Hamsher has built a well-oiled outrage machine that’s now firmly pointed at the White House and its Democratic allies in Congress, ” that gave you so much concern about Accountability Now’s administration?
    .
    Somehow you’ve also conflated the notion of “greater disclosure” with Jane Hamsher’s willingness to entertain questions from you. Obviously these are two very separate concepts, since there seems to be no actual problem whatsoever with the transparency of their accounting. You, yourself state that “The only person who had trouble giving me an answer was Hamsher.” Perhaps instead of raising red flags as to the appropriateness of AN’s minuscule disbursements, it should have indicated to you that your subject found you to be a hostile interviewer, or simply tedious. When you say “my experience trying to question her about them suggests that she’s not big on transparency,” it’s just as likely that she’s just not big on you, your blog, your reporting methods or any other number of reasons why someone wouldn’t necessarily have time in their day to respond to representatives of “The Drudge Retort”.
    .
    Conclusions like “I was later able to determine that [KMP Research] is a company set up by Hamsher to pay herself” don’t seem to be supported by facts anywhere in your piece. You do assert “KMP Research is a business entity that Hamsher uses in both PACs to pay herself. It has the same post office box as Firedoglake in Falls Church,” but how exactly do you know with empirical certainty that the sole purpose of the entity is to funnel money to Hamsher (improperly or not)?
    .
    That’s not journalism, that’s innuendo.
    .
    As for Greenwald speaking to your motivations, I have to agree with you that he’s assuming what he does not know as fact. After all, Greenwald can’t know that your motives are to retaliate for politicking against Obama or his policies merely from you having quoted former FDL employees as saying “Some of her alliances over the last year have genuinely surprised me, though, particularly with regard to the flap over the health care bill” in a piece that ostensibly has nothing to do with the flap over the health care bill, only your questions over Accountability Now’s use of funds. He can’t know your reasons for suggesting that lack of specificity as to nyceve and slinkerwink’s funding “raises the question of where donations were sent” in a piece in which you lead with “appearances on Fox News bashing the Obama administration“. In order for him to be correct, he’d really have to say that these facts raise the question of your motives, and that he wonders how much of your doubt is motivated by a desire for page hits versus whatever you may have been compensated by political operatives to attack the integrity of Obama critics.
    .
    When you say “The suggestion that I’m doing all of this because I love Obama and I hate his critics is completely false“, you could be telling the truth, i.e. you could certainly be sewing doubt amongst those who might contribute to Accountability Now about the appropriate use of their funds for the most mundane and mercenary of reasons.
    .
    Glenn Greenwald was inaccurate for stating an assumption as fact, it is true. Who knows why or how much you were paid by whom to put out a piece hitting Hamsher and him precisely where it counts for shoestring operations like grass-roots online campaigns –on their fundraising?
    .
    Thank you for your response, Rogers Cadenhead, it’s been quite helpful. Good luck in the future with your blog, it seems as if you’ll generate some decent traffic from this episode, certainly more than you may have seen otherwise.

    link to this comment at DailyKos

  • apr2563

    The WaPo under Hiatt has turned into a center right poor excuse for a newspaper. However, let’s hope Karen will bring her objective reporters eye to her new job. I know she will and like many here will miss her interaction and thoughtfulness.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I’ll miss her. Maybe she will do her on-line chats once a week like so many of them do-with varying success.
    .
    It’s a shame, although a traditional reporter she was excellent in this format.

  • deconstructiva

    I’ll miss Karen too.

  • tomdegan

    Financial re-regulation should be the next item on the agenda – no ifs, ands or buts about it, boys and girls. We had thirty years of deregulated “Reaganomics” and look where that got us. It is my wish that one day the American people overcome their dysfunctional love affair with Ronald Reagan and wake up to the reality that the Gipper was a complete and utter fool.

    I was starting to get a little depressed about President Obama. I feared he was on the fast track to becoming another Bill Clinton. It now seems that he might want to be another Franklin Roosevelt. He may be FDR Lite, but I’ll take what I can get, thank you very much.

    This administration will really get some steam behind it once the midterm elections are behind it. Count on a major upset for “the party of Lincoln” (TOO FUNNY!) in November The months between now and then will only see their continual implosion.

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan

  • carotexas1

    I will miss Karen too.

blog comments powered by Disqus