Morning Must Reads: The Dodd/Frank Act

REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

–Final language for financial reform is more or less done. The marathon 20-hour session that only wrapped up a few hours ago saw House and Senate negotiators run out of paper and conferees fall asleep at the table, but ultimately produced a product that (likely) has the support to make it to the president’s desk by July 4 and (certainly) has the potency to change the face of the U.S. financial sector.

The so-called “Volcker Rule,” the portion of the bill that would ban federally insured firms from trading on their own accounts, got a number of updates last night. Banks will now have two years to wind down their proprietary trading activities and what constitutes those trades has been more explicitly defined. Republican Scott Brown did end up winning some concessions, but he got less than many expected. Insurance companies would retain limited trading privileges and banks would be able to invest 3 percent of their equity in hedge/private equity funds.

A fierce battle over Blanche Lincoln’s strict derivatives regulation was what pushed negotiations into early morning. With a handful of centrist New York Democrats threatening to pull support, conferees forged a compromise that would allow banks to trade derivatives deemed to have value in hedging against their losses — instruments such as interest rate and foreign exchange swaps would be allowed, while making bets on commodity or energy futures would be forced into separate operations.

The final cost of implementing the bill was estimated to be roughly $20 billion; Democrats tacked on a corresponding assessment on the financial sector designed to pay for the legislation in full, with the largest and riskiest institutions forced to pony up the most money. Final votes in the House and Senate are expected next week. Dodd will get his legacy wish.

Assuming final passage, the 111th Congress may well go down among the most prolific sessions in history. It is still unclear if Democrats can match their record of passing sweeping legislation with successes in selling the public on those reforms. The stimulus and health care have proved difficult challenges on that front, but financial reform is likely a different beast — it was more popular from the outset, and gives Democrats a populist deliverable to trumpet on the march toward November.

–In an impromptu statement to the press this morning, Obama said he was “gratified” by the deal struck on financial reform. If the central argument of his 2012 re-election effort is to be domestic reform efficacy, he’s building quite the resume.

–Among Obama’s key meetings when he heads to Canada later today for the G20 economic summit is a sit-down with China’s Hu Jintao. Currency issues are likely to dominate those discussions, but austerity remains the central theme of the confab overall.

–Felix Salmon turns his eye to international financial regulation and argues that it’s a pivot Obama needs to make ASAP:

It’s in Basel, not Washington, that the most important constraints on the global banking system are going to be enacted. And pushing the rest of the G20 to get tough in Basel should be at the top of Barack Obama’s to-do list this weekend.

–And Clint Webb for Senate:

What did I miss?

You can contact Adam at swampland@time.com.

Related Topics: Barack Obama, Budgets, Congress, Democratic Party, Economy, Miscellany, Republican Party, Senate, White House
  • 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.

  • jimpinter

    These two clowns didn’t do enough harm with Fannie & Freddie?

  • nflfoghorn

    Get it right–they’re the Two Barneys. As in Rubble.

  • m0mentom0ri

    WDIM?
    .
    The SCOTUS just made free speech in the support of peaceful and non-violent protests a criminal act.
    .
    I swear, if Ghandi was alive today, they’d issue a warrant for his arrest.
    .
    http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/what-counts-as-abetting-terrorists/#cole

  • grape_crush

    What did I miss?

    The GOP War on the Unemployed, aka: “Suck It, Losers”, Part 3.

    “Republican lawmakers — joined by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska — maintained a unified front to sustain a filibuster of the $110-billion bill. The vote was 57 to 41; the majority was three short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and bring the bill to a final vote.

    Democrats said they would give no further ground and put the onus on Republicans to make concessions.

    “If there were ever evidence that this is the party of no, this is it,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who added that several governors would be arriving in Washington next week to make the case for the bill to help states, businesses and those who have been out of work more than six months.”

  • grape_crush

    The loudest voices.

    (Down by the last bar chart)

    “While money is an imperfect measure of influence, the notion that public interest groups and unions can serve as a counterbalance to corporations appears to be an exaggeration, at best.”

  • grape_crush

    Ooh, I want to tell you, it’s a long run / in the long run

    “‘The Democratic Party will become even more dominated by the emerging constituencies that gave Barack Obama his historic 2008 victory, while the Republican Party will be forced to move toward the center to compete for these constituencies. As a result, modern conservatism is likely to lose its dominant place in the GOP,’ he writes, adding that ‘the Republican Party as currently constituted is in need of serious and substantial changes in approach.’”

  • 53_3

    And don’t you forget for a second all those union thugs at the quarry!
    .
    There is nothing worse than trying to scratch rocks out of a quarry when your brontosaurus is sick…

  • grape_crush

    Special Ops.

    “Beginning in the early afternoon, a cadre of military and civilian soldiers loyal to Gen. Stanley McChrystal began to spread rumors throughout the capital city: that ground commanders in Afghanistan were threatening to resign … that the CIA’s chief of station in Kabul had stepped down … that the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), William McRaven, was irate and wanted to step down … that commanders of the ‘special mission units’ like McRaven’s former subordinates at DevGru (SEAL Team Six) would refuse taskings from the National Command Authority … that buried secrets were about to be exposed, like who actually leaked the McChrystal Afghanistan review to Bob Woodward.

    First, though a lot of officers who hitched their careers to McChrystal are indeed quite angry, no one has resigned, the CIA’s station chief remains in place (though he’s quite close to McChrystal) and McRaven isn’t going anywhere. Second, it is meaningful and endearing that so many people are loyal to McChrystal. They revere the man. Third, such behavior, while in one context explicable, is precisely an argument in favor of President Obama’s decision to remove McChrystal. The war is about more than one man. No deviations from the mission are acceptable. “

  • Ivy_B

    a cadre of military and civilian soldiers

    What are civilian soldiers?

  • stinkfut

    “Civilian Soldiers” seemed a bit of an oxymoron to me at first.

    But I’m guessing it’s Blackwater.

  • Ivy_B

    Aha! I’ll bet you’re right

  • stuartzechman

    Fannie and Freddie were not responsible for the subprime loan default crisis, gigantic private institutions like WaMu and the credit ratings agencies were.
    .
    Blame Chase and Citigroup, not Fannie and Freddie.

  • deconstructiva

    In honor of our World Cup, an update on the last truly great WC event, aka Brandi Chastain’s bra (1999 world “cup” moment) –
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/37919204

  • stuartzechman

    Hey Sorensen!
    .
    NYU J-school’s Prof. Jay Rosen showed up this morning in your thread, in response to analysis and criticism of his theories and terminology laid out by the Commentariat here in a post from you that featured a few seconds of celebrity child video.
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/06/24/bristol-palins-television-debut/comment-page-1/#comment-176864
    .
    What do you think about that?
    .
    Did you actually read any of that commentary?

  • square1

    Dodd will get a big, fat paycheck from Wall Street. That’s what Dodd will get.

  • earljr1

    This photograph should definitely be in the 1,000 word category. “he’s a bigger crook than I am and brother, that takes some doing”! No two people have misused the public’s trust more than these two scoundrels. Talk about poster boys for why Americans distrust congress (71% disapproval rating)….these two lead the parade. What they did to Freddie and Fannie, was absolutely criminal, yet we are suppose to TRUST them when it comes to financial reform… This IS a joke, right?

  • porkdumpling

    Tell us *specifically* what Dodd and Frank did to Fannie and Freddie. Not generalities about crooks and bad accounting, etc. Specifically, what did they touch in those two firms, and include the dates please, since the Repubs controlled Congress from 1994-2006. If you can’t tell us with evidence, then we know all you’re doing is regurgitating what right-wing media is feeding you.

  • nflfoghorn

    World C Cup, methinks ;)

  • stuartzechman

    Adam Sorensen:
    .
    I notice that you have written:
    .
    Insurance companies would retain limited trading privileges and banks would be able to invest 3 percent of their equity in hedge/private equity funds.
    .
    How does your take square with Forbes’?

    Treasury, Dodd Sell Out To Wall Street
    .
    Robert Lenzner, 06.24.10, 07:00 PM EDT
    .
    By getting rid of limitations on leverage, Wall Street has raised the odds of another financial crisis.
    .
    The big banks’ lobbyists have convinced Treasury and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, not to support Rep Barney Frank’s, D-Mass., insistence on limiting the leverage Wall Street can use to trade securities.
    .
    At the moment, Frank has lost the battle to limit Wall Street to borrowing $15 for every $1 in capital. If there is no limit it means the risk taking that triggered the demise of Lehman and Bear Stearns, the shotgun marriage of Merrill Lynch and the costly bailouts of Citigroup ( C – news – people ), and Bank of America ( BAC – news – people ), and other financial institutions, is again a very real possibility.
    .
    Harvard Business School professor David Moss says that “a cap on leverage is absolutely essential. We need to tighten the limits on borrowing at major financial institutions, both on balance sheet and off. Regulators should use their discretion in setting these limits, but there should also be a statutory cap on leverage, a maximum speed limit, if you will, that regulators can’t loosen. After all, many regulators let down their guard last time around.”
    .
    Lax government oversight and deregulation of the financial services industry were major causes of the economic and financial meltdown we experienced from 2007 until March. It was the leverage employed by banks that wiped out their capital when the value of mortgage-backed securities dramatically declined in value during 2007 and 2008.

    Is this true, Adam Sorensen?
    .
    Did the finreg conferees just fail to control the risk of banks’ borrowing…again?

  • stuartzechman
  • Adam Sorensen

    Worth expanding on:

    The three percent issue isn’t about leverage ratios (how much debt they can carry compared to how much they have in assets), it’s about what banks can do with their own money. Capital requirements are a different portion of the legislation. The hard 15-1 cap in the House bill is not in the final legislation. The White House and regulatory agencies opposed it for a couple of reasons: 1) They were concerned it would interfere with ongoing international negotiations about setting leverage ratios world-wide. 2) Regulators thought they could do a better job if they were more flexible in regulating capital requirements.

    What did make it into the final bill is the so-called Collins Amendment. You can read a summary here

    http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/summary-of-collins-capital-requirments-amendment-sa-3879-press-2-1.doc

    , but it’s somewhat complicated. Basically it clarifies and trims up current regulation to impose stricter (but not blanket 15:1) capital requirements, and avoids situations where firms get more wiggle room by reporting sketchy stuff as reliable assets.

    The capital requirement issue follows a theme throughout the current bill; for the most part, this legislation better empowers regulators and brings more transparency to the financial sector. It ends some of the most egregious practices that caused the last crisis, but it by-and-large does not set fool-proof safeguards against the next unknown disaster. Though another crisis will be easier to avoid after this legislation passes, it will take agency on the part of regulators to do so. The next important effort for reform may be creating a better, smarter class of regulator.

    As far as the banks loving this legislation? Don’t read too much into all that. They spent a lot of money fighting it, and everyone agrees the bill will significantly cut into Wall Street profits. And just because they could, Democrats are getting an extra 20 billion out of the industry to pay for implementation.

    Update: please see here for more on international negotiations on capital requirements:

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/25/the-good-and-the-bad-of-basel-iii/

  • stuartzechman

    I am so very grateful for this additional information, Adam Sorensen. I’ll begin poring over it ASAP.
    .
    Thanks for the link to the Collins Amendment, and thanks very much for the link to the piece on international negotiations –very important to judge the Administration’s claims with respect to:
    .
    They were concerned it would interfere with ongoing international negotiations about setting leverage ratios world-wide.
    .
    It should be made clear, I suppose, that you are merely restating the Administration’s stated positions when you write “Regulators thought they could do a better job if they were more flexible in regulating capital requirements.” The “regulators” in question are the same folks who share the opinion at Treasury and the WH’s Council of Economic Advisers that emerged in the late 1990′s –that “flexibility” was the greatest priority in regulatory legislation, to be prized above, say, the blanket mitigation of risk.
    .
    Some could take issue with much of your characterizations (“this legislation better empowers regulators and brings more transparency to the financial sector“, “ends some of the most egregious practices that caused the last crisis“), because these are claims premised upon analysis that is much in dispute, with the proponents of these claims being amongst those who were completely wrong about the last set of legislation’s effects on markets.
    .
    I will confine myself to remarking that, when the default position in an adversarial negotiation is to bitterly fight against the relinquishing of anything –financial industry executives being less so inclined to compromise than, say, Democratic legislators– it isn’t terribly instructive to note that the banks aren’t “loving this legislation.” Suffice it to say that cuts in profits and dedicated funds aren’t the same kind of problems for the industry that New Deal-reminiscent structural changes would have meant. The possibility that “empowering regulators” is less effective at prohibiting obscenely risky behavior than statute prohibiting obscenely risky behavior doesn’t seem to have occurred to the Administration, possibly because they don’t believe that New Deal financial policy is “21st century” enough to accommodate other goals —ideological goals that may remain largely unstated and unreported, even during the passage of significant financial regulatory legislation.
    .
    I do very, very much appreciate you having taken the time and trouble to have done this fantastic follow-up work, Adam Sorensen.
    .
    This sort of interactivity is one more reason why this blog remains a worthwhile destination for engaged news consumers.
    .
    Thank you so much, once again.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    I think you’ll have to email him

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Umm, strike 9.1 above. Thanks Adam.

  • earljr1

    What a pitiful, liberal response. pork. “They may be crooks, but they are OUR crooks”, is what you are saying. To begin with, Frank had a LOVE relationship with one of directors of fannie and freddie, Herb moses and it was Frank and Dodd who stymied Pres. Bush’s attempt in 2003 to investigate and regulate fannie and freddie…both said “it is in GREAT shape and needs NO oversight”, when if fact, it was already losing 100′s of billions dollars! If this doesn’t describe cronyism and criminal mismanagement, then pray tell, pork, what DOES? I was busy in the O.R. all day, so did not have a chance to respond until now.

  • apr2563

    But that has been the rw meme from the beginning:
    Freddie, Fannie, Acorn, Socialism

  • apr2563

    Thanks grape_crush. I book marked that graph. The next time someone whines about the influence of unions I will use it. Here in CA that has been Arnie’s constant complaint, while he took as much money from business interests as he possibly could.
    What is wonderful, however, is that Whitman has taken on the nurse’s union. Foolish woman. The nurses union humiliated Arnie through hard work and smart maneuvers. No one messes with the nurses.

  • porkdumpling

    Earl, answer my very reasonable question. Instead of rumor and hearsay, give evidence. You must know what that is. For the record, I am very open-minded about this particular issue and am ready to assign blame to all parties. So again, instead of your facile response attacking me, give clear evidence with specifics as to how Frank and Dodd are responsible for the mess Freddie and Fannie are in, and how Republicans are blame-free. SPECIFICS.

  • earljr1

    The most telling evidence, pork, is Frank telling white house inquiries in 2003, (businessmedia.org) that fannie and freddie were in GREAT shape and did not need oversight. He was trying to protect his lover, Herbert Moses, the directer, when in fact, fannie and freddie were losing hundreds of billions of dollars. Dodd was also complicit in this cover up and personally took a way below rate mortgage, for his personal use. NUMEROUS stories have been written on their bad, ethically challenged behavior…just search Barney Frank scandal and you will find a sickening abundance of material and yet this miscreant remains in office. (go figure)

  • porkdumpling

    Ok, earl, I’ll bite. Certainly, Frank’s comment in 2003 that Fannie and Freddie were fine was incredibly stupid, but how exactly did that stop the Congressional Republicans, who were in charge then, from carrying out their oversight? As for Dodd, his below rate mortgage was with Countrywide, which had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie. (I would agree the loan was completely crooked, and this constituents seem to agree, since it cost him any re-election prospect.)
    .
    So now explain again how the Republican-led Congress was completely blameless in the mess, even though they held control from 94-06?

  • earljr1

    At no point, pork, did I absolve the republicans from guilt by association. ALL of the evidence was there of misconduct by Barney and friends, that begged for intervention and it did not happen. I remember Maxine Waters declaring that any attempt to regulate fannie and freddie was RACIST, so the republicans backed off…shame on them, but it was the democrats who dug in their heels and refused any oversight. There is plenty of blame to spread, pork, but Frank and Dodd deserve the lion’s share for fannie and freddie…the facts are indisputable.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    The elephant in the room is the Republicans’ desire that no good thing be credited to the Democrats. Whether or not that thing benefits America is irrelevant.

  • porkdumpling

    Your comments around here don’t seem to be spreading the blame. In fact, you present it that Frank single-handedly tanked Fannie and Freddie, without any evidence except a rumor of some personal relationship with someone at Fannie. Even though that person left Fannie in 1998, and they broke up a few months later. And you’re talking about 2003. So how does that jibe up?
    .
    So again, how come Congressional Republicans who had control from 94-06 didn’t intervene if they were so prescient?
    .
    (This does not mean I endorse the ridiculous number of incestuous relationships in DC. But if you want to attack Frank’s personal relationship with Herb Moses, then 1) show evidence against Frank, instead of innuendo, and 2) equally criticize Republicans who do the same, such as Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy Lee Gramm, who together were responsible for even worse financial disaster.)

  • earljr1

    You are hopeless, pork and I should have known better. You are so firmly ensconced in your liberal fantasy world, you may never see the light of day. Yes, indeed, Barney, Chris and Maxine are ALL sterling examples of liberal politics, where chicanery abounds, but hey, they are YOUR crooks, right? You defend the indefensible and will NEVER change your perspective, so why bother? I have more important things in my life than debating with a brainwashed, liberal fanatic. We can only hope, pork, that current polls are correct and the American people will start voting your kind out of office. (before you completely bankrupt our country)

  • porkdumpling

    Yes, run away. Since any reader of this exchange realizes that you failed to provide any piece of real evidence to back up your accusations. This is typical of Fox viewers and Limbaugh acolytes (though not of all conservatives). Just hysteria, not facts. And a one-sided view of how the world came to be.
    .
    The funny thing, earl, is that I’m not a liberal. Never have been. My opinions around here are pretty centrist: socially liberal, fiscally moderate. Like most sane-headed in America.
    .
    You, OTOH, is just another tea-bagging loon, squawking about socialism but perfectly happy to accept government grants to your university employers and Medicare payments to you and your hospital. Another hypocrite pointing the finger of one hand while taking payment from taxpayers with the other.

  • earljr1

    Just as I expected, pork, a liberal rant about how wonderful your welfare state is and incoherent rage at those dastardly conservatives who desire to change its crumbling, virtually bankrupt foundation. You keep standing in line, pork, waiting for your next handout, while concerned Americans work to overturn this myopic misfeasance…you and your ilk are virtually worthless to a PRODUCTIVE America.

  • porkdumpling

    You’re the one taking government checks, freeloader.

  • deconstructiva

    Actually, “Dr.” Earl (never proven here, though has the surgeon’s attitude down pat) claimed his mythical “university” is privately funded (how is that done? which university? only crickets for answers) –
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/26/reid-on-the-rebound/comment-page-1/#comment-168064

  • homerhk

    Probably too late for you to read this as you’ve moved onto other posts but Gandhi is spelled G A N D H I. Also, he was arrested numerous times in the course of his protests.

blog comments powered by Disqus