Senate Math on Financial Reform Gets a Bit Easier

Maria Cantwell intends to vote for the bill, her spokesman tells me. She was won over by a letter from Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, in which he reassured her the language regulating derivatives is sufficiently clear and enforceable. Cantwell voted against the original Senate version because of concerns that there were loopholes in that portion of the legislation.

Her vote means Democrats will only need to win over two of the four fence-sitting Republicans to clear procedural hurdles in the Senate. Susan Collins has already suggested she’s inclined to support the bill, leaving Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley and Scott Brown as three potential pick-ups to put the legislation over the top.

Jay reported earlier today that “Harry Reid’s staff didn’t seem too worried” about getting the votes. Cantwell’s support gives them that much more breathing room headed into the recess.

Cantwell’s statement and Gensler’s full letter after the jump:

Cantwell Announces Support For Regulatory Reform Legislation

“I will vote in support of the conference report because it makes great strides toward our ultimate goal:  bringing all standard derivatives onto exchanges and clearinghouses, with aggregate position limits and strong anti-manipulation tools,” Senator Cantwell said. “Since even before the financial crisis of fall 2008 I have been fighting to bring the $600 trillion derivatives market out of the dark, unregulated betting hall where it has existed and into the bright light of transparency and regulation. This legislation is not perfect, and I will continue to push for even bolder action – including a return to the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking – to reign in Wall Street, put an end to the concept of ‘too-big-to-fail.’ But this bill makes significant strides toward preventing the kind of financial meltdown that we saw in the fall of 2008.”

Dear Senator Cantwell:

In response to your request, I am writing to provide my views on the clearing requirement in Title VII of H.R. 4173, the “Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.” The legislation reported by the Conference Committee is strong, comprehensive and historic. The legislation mandates the clearing and transparent trading of standardized over-the-counter derivatives and comprehensive regulation of derivatives dealers.

The bill explicitly requires that swap dealers, major swap participants and financial entities use a clearinghouse for standardized or “clearable” derivatives transactions. Under the bill the CFTC and SEC are required to promulgate rules and regulations to provide for the mandatory clearing of such swaps. Commercial end users are exempt from this clearing requirement, as are customized swaps, and the Commission is directed to consider whether to exempt small banks, savings associations, farm credit institutions and credit unions from the clearing requirement.

I believe that a significant portion of the market will be subject to this mandatory clearing requirement. Although estimates vary, the CEO of one of the largest financial institutions and swap dealers in the U.S. has publicly testified that as much as 75 to 80 percent of the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace is standard enough to be centrally cleared. While we do not know for certain what portion of the standard market is between and amongst financial entities, data from the Bank for International Settlements indicate that more than 85 percent of the entire over-the-counter derivatives marketplace is between or amongst reporting swap dealers and other financial entities.

These clearing requirements, together with the trading requirement and comprehensive dealer regulation, will greatly reduce risk and enhance transparency in these markets.

Thank you for all of your contributions toward this landmark legislation.

Sincerely,

Gary Gensler
Chairman

Related Topics: cftc, financial reform, gary gensler, maria cantwell, Congress
  • 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.

  • gysgt213

    Adam-what is in the bill that affects us little people?

  • Adam Sorensen

    The CFPB might protect you from getting hoodwinked by a predatory lender, the resolution authority might provide an alternative to a bank rescue using your tax dollars, and the overall effort to limit some risky practices in the financial sector might mitigate the overall economic damage done by the next crisis.

    If you’re just small in stature, I’m afraid it doesn’t have any specific provisions for you.

  • gysgt213

    “If you’re just small in stature, I’m afraid it doesn’t have any specific provisions for you.”
    .
    Adam-thanks so much for responding, but your statement above begs the question. Are there any provisions in the bill that could actually or potentionally work against us little people?

  • mikew67

    What a joke the Wall-Street pocket boy Dodd, is. Obama sucks on this bill also. If you don’t limit the size of these behemoth banks, you’ve changed nothing.

    They know they can gamble hog wild in the future, and the U.S. taxpayer has to bail them out because they are Too Big To Fail.

    Balkingpoints / www

  • Adam Sorensen

    Just making a bad attempt at a height joke. But since you ask, the bill does restrict practices that have been profitable for banks and it’s partially funded by upped FDIC premiums, so banks will probably be passing those costs onto you, the consumer. As with any piece of complex legislation, there’s the potential for unintended consequences that are difficult to foresee.

    But probably the thing to worry about is where it might fall short. Regulators are fallible and we have a pretty poor track record when it comes to anticipating causes of the next financial crisis. Capital requirements is a “set it and forget it” kind of regulation, but that hinges on ongoing international negotiations. The bill also kicks the can down the road on some important things like credit ratings agency reform and skips over GSE reform altogether. I dont know if that stuff fits your definition of “working against the little people” though.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks for these thoughts, Adam. Reading tea leaves is tough but worth the try, esp. when this reform – and it’s only the beginning, not the end – affects us directly. I asked the CC blog authors twice for thoughts on how FR falls short but no reply (not easy to answer), so thanks here to all for asking similar q’s. and getting answers. I love to poke a sharp stick at Sarah Palin but this issue is more important.

  • deconstructiva

    …meant for #2, oops, NOT a cheap attempt to raise comment count, although the disappointing low #’s at other FR posts have been noted.

  • merlanai

    ACTUALLY, I think you can blame the republicans for that since the dems had to water down to bill in order to get the extra votes.

  • merlanai

    I don’t think it’s for lack of readers. A lot of us are just staying silent because we don’t have anything intelligent to say on the issue. The closest thing I took to an economics class I took in college was accounting.

  • sacredh

    merlanai, I’m in the same boat. I read them but seldom comment because it’s an area that I have little to offer in the way of insight.

blog comments powered by Disqus