Talk:WG/Strategies/Finanacial Regulation
5. Change the way bankers get paid
- user:reyraton Oct 13, 2011 10:54 am
"5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company's long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world."
To some extent, this is in:
http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2011/bulletin-2011-13.html
I think the language can be strengthened, certainly. The basic idea is sound: risk is to be controlled and payouts happen only after a three+ year wait... but the actual language undermines that.
This is something that can be upheld.
re: 5. Change the way bankers get paid
- [[user:
]] jobelenus
A great video on how to set up Banker pay http://ampedstatus.org/time-to-clawback-2-2-trillion-in-corrupt-banker-compensation-nassim-taleb-on-occupywallstreet/
7. An army of accountants
- user:juice1502 Oct 14, 2011 11:02 am
"7. An army of accountants. America is willing to pony up a few billion to beef up our financial regulatory agencies with accountants. The SEC needs to have as many eyes, hands and calculators as necessary to perform their jobs."
I fear that the SEC provides a clear and present example of regulatory capture at its worst (see: Adam Storch). I'm not so sure simply pouring more troops into the garrison with Benedict Arnold in command will provide the quick, sharp, equitable, and permanent solutions we require to check the behavioral biology of the post-Reagan securities industry culture. The SEC is a severely weak and infected agency; the archetypal toothless tiger. SEC needs a massive strip down rebuild.
For starters, guys like Harry Markopolos should have a bit more access to the new SEC than thru the veritable unmanned complaint desk he was stuck dealing with (SEC really is trapped in the 1930s; don't be fooled by the solar panels and the computers). Also, a systematic approach to ending the corporate revolving door at that agency is paramount (NO MORE BLOODY GOLDMANites!!! at the very least, anywhere near the Treasury either for that matter! )
An SEC 2.0 will require a far more scientifically oriented agent force. That is to say, a strict, advanced, and evolved Forensic Accountancy training program is required if we wish the culture to change. There are plenty of physicists, mathematicians, engineers out there who can track down and gotcha the highly experienced industry specialist/rogue. The culture at SEC needs a 21st Century renaissance. And I'm not articulating what that needs to be very well here. And I've been long-winded.
re: 7. An army of accountants
- user:reyraton Oct 16, 2011 3:33 am
Honestly, I think a lot of problems at the SEC come out of a lack of funding. If you put an accountant at a desk and tell him everything is fine, he's still going to go through the books.
The SEC as an institution clearly needs help and reform, but for this point all I'm doing is pointing out that it needs a budget commensurate with auditing the world's premier financial exchanges.
re: 7. An army of accountants
- user:juice1502 Oct 17, 2011 4:07 pm
Fair enough. Though I do feel quite strongly about my opinion on this matter. And it is shared by loads of individuals who work in industry and in the trade. There is a colossal problem at SEC leaving whistleblowers out in the storm, for further example. Please do read Matt Taibbi's scathing and correct SEC exposé from late last summer: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817
We'll have to agree to respectfully disagree for now on the severity and scope of the problems at the agency.
However, I think it would be helpful to at least watch what's going on with the IG of SEC lately. H. David Kotz (the man with the plan who tried to shake up the agency in 2009: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/in-madoffs-wake-sec-is-told-to-revamp-inquiries/?scp=4&sq=David%2520kotz%25202009&st=cse) has turned up the heat in the kitchen with the release of his latest oversight report on the agency's ethics failures. I think we should watch what the Republican response to Kotz' latest report brings. A new assault on the SEC's purse is expected and anticipated down in the DC grapevine from what I hear. Here is some update info:
http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LRMPMJ0D9L3501-4EBP75QPG7GL32T6OMR2INM4JJ
I do understand what point you're making. I just wanted to air my thoughts out. It is done.
re: 7. An army of accountants
Sounds like someone should be expanding the scope of the Financial Regulation proposal page. :)
The SEC needs more accountants. If there are more adjustments you think necessary past that, toss up an idea and let's roll up our sleeves and dive in - let's not let your insight end here just because I wasn't broad enough in perspective!
re: 7. An army of accountants
- user:reyraton Oct 18, 2011 5:30 am
I'd love to assist in the expansion of the Fin. Reg. proposal page if I could be of any use. I'd love it even more if policy meetings didn't meet after 10pm (after GA?). Especially, since I can't seem to find the meetings when I am in the camp that late :) It would be terrific to sit down with folks like yourself if opportunity existed. This wiki is a very solid idea and an important base for gathering and analyzing intelligence. However, I prefer sitting with people in live fashion (doesn't always have to be in camp necessarily I hope?). Quite honestly, I didn't realize I had any power to alter or expand a given proposal page. Or if it's a good idea for me to be touching anything. I haven't even applied to be a member of this Wiki yet.
For the moment, Rey, could I simply propose that you apply the same funding increases/resource support to the CFTC that is proposed for the SEC? CFTC needs the same help that SEC does as it has a lot of the same problems that I rave about above re: SEC. CFTC is definitely understaffed. An efficiently beefed-up CFTC and SEC would serve as the Public's two-headed (friendly) dragon in a more perfect world. There needs to be more inter-agency collaboration and intell sharing, etc. These two agencies need internal capacity increases and they need better info-sharing capabilities. And no, that does not mean a Dept. of Homeland Security-like behemoth need be created. Nothing of the sort. Both agencies have been standing behind the walls of a pillow fortress whilst carrying shoestring and bubble gum weaponry for too many years now.
OK. That's enough ridiculous imagery for one post.
re: 7. An army of accountants
- user:khill Nov 6, 2011 12:08 pm
It seems to me that the occupy movement could be the beginnings of such an army. Perhaps someone with accounting knowledge should start teach-ins. I think this does 2 things. First, it helps people with personal finance as people would learn the basics of maintaining balanced accounts, interest etc, and at the same time it starts to work towards the larger goal of being able to have high-level, specific discussions about accounting practices that negatively impact the majority of the world.
make money available for small and mid sized businesses
- user:Anandi99 Oct 17, 2011 9:27 am
One thing that is so important as we move to demands or policy phase....we need to be specific on our demands for accountability in financial sector. And so important we keep talking re-instatement of Glass-Steagall act which separates banks from speculation....also focus on making money available for small and mid size businesses which will stimulate economy and also appeal to business community
re: make money available for small and mid sized businesses
- user:reyraton Oct 17, 2011 10:47 am
That's a good goal, but we need a discussion that aims at "how".
Right now, retail lending is locked-up because banks are carrying assets they can't value: namely, mortgages (and their derivatives) whose worth hasn't really been worked out on this side of 2008.
1. Break up the monopolies
- user:reyraton Oct 13, 2011 10:32 am
This is best done through asking for a repeal of the FDIC mandate allowing them to prop up bank: banks that fail are placed into receivership of the FDIC rather than offered loans.
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
- user:gwiech Oct 13, 2011 6:24 pm
I would use the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up the banks into smaller more manageable pieces. In fact, I would do that for all industries that have become monopolies.
Communications/Cable/Radio Health Insurance Banking Others?
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
- user:juice1502 Oct 13, 2011 10:05 pm
Agro-biz (e.g. Monsanto with 80%+ share of market)
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
- user:reyraton Oct 14, 2011 3:51 am
I hadn't considered using Sherman... I think that still has to be proven to a judge, though, and I don't think they currently have their shit together enough to be considered an oligarchy or cartel. They're over-concentrated, but I don't think much past that.
I'm expecting a major melt-down in 2012 anyhow arising out of the Eurozone mess.
I also, especially, like the idea of setting traps rather than swinging hammers. I'm concerned that middle America would cringe at the idea of the government coming in, disrupting the credit market and dismembering banks and we'd end up with nothing... whereas "don't prop up banks" is a pretty strong meme.
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
- user:juice1502 Oct 14, 2011 10:22 am
Concur completely with the expectation of a Eurozone melt-down. The bailout fund is nothing short of dark comedy.
Seasoned bank-watcher/irritator Rep. Peter Welch is pushing for a DOJ investigation into price signaling and/or collusion (violation of anti-trust statutes) re: this latest debit card fee plan cooked up amongst our zombie banks. Nothing radical whatsoever about his claim. Read his letter to Holder here:
The fact that Six bank holding companies possess control over (roughly) 65% of our GDP is looking pretty counter-capitalist. I have not yet heard a serious and convincing argument as to why we shouldn't be looking at the idea of banking institutions as public utilities. The Bank of North Dakota is an interesting system to look at for consideration, at least as a form of competition (solid lending/due diligence record there). BofND is not a one-shot solution/model but could help shape debate. Also, see Canadian banking regulatory systematics. Why can't these types of rules be applied to US banking? It's not an outrageous question.
Some facts that hurt:
http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/top50form.aspx
My opinion on banking (above) aside, I do not see anything radical about asking our government why it cannot look at the concentrated balance sheet power of BHCs in the post-Global Credit Crunch world and take steps to, at the very least, de-concentrate banking to 2007 levels. This just to begin with!
I don't disagree with your support for the "don't prop up banks" meme. However, the heavy media editorial assault against #OWS movements has this week, by my opinion/observation, begun to shift towards asking us why we (in typical patronizing tone) 'think we can change anything by telling government what we don't want vs. what we do want.'
"Don't Prop Up The Banks" (or the like) will certainly work well for the movement in the short-term, populist sense. However, I'd like to know how we'll enhance DPUTB two or three steps down the road.
Please keep up the thought process here. I am enjoying what you guys have written so far.
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
From everything I understand about the EU issue, the major players like Germany and France control the currency and they are doing exactly the wrong things when it comes to smaller nations like Greece. They are pushing austerity, which merely makes their economies tank further, and they aren't loosening up monetary policy so those smaller countries are having to pay their debts with "expensive" money. If Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal had their own currency they would be in a better position to fix their problems.
The Bank of North Dakota has been largely overlooked in this whole banking discussion but it has done enormously well for North Dakotans. It might be a good thing to push here in our state as an option to Wall St. It makes me think of the "Move Your Money" campaign HuffPo had a while back where people shrink the big banks by moving their money to smaller community banks.
Rey, you may be right about the optics of breaking up the banks. It would certainly end up a divisive issue.
I heard an interview yesterday with Ravi Batra, an economist who predicted this bubble and crash. He thinks next year will be a lousy year but it'll be 2013 that the crap will hit the fan. It'll be the catalyst for a movement to end crony capitalism, which he thinks will be gone by the end of 2015. To me it sounds very optimistic but who knows.
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
I'd like to know what peoples' thoughts are on all the space between the two extremes I think I'm detecting here: 1.) status quo (zombie bankery as it is) and 2.) a quick and dirty break-up of the largest banking institutions (perhaps the top four).
I find ideas like the FDIC receivership concept to be very sound. But anti-trust laws must be enforced if they've been broken, no? Perhaps it's time to cast the die in court? I don't think it's totally out to lunch to at least consider Sherman AT proceedings. I'd wager that the public might be hungrier than we think for some busting up of the neo-trusts, at least in banking. Even segments of the Tea Partyites are/were ravenous for some degree of TBTF bank breakup.
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
Based on this, I think reducing the FDIC mandate but calling for an investigation of anti-trust activities (as opposed to assumption of break them up) would be the best mix.
re: 1. Break up the monopolies
- user: Deepgreen1 22:24, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
Deconstruct, deconsolidate, deamalgamate, decentralize, and relocalize the big banks into small locally owned and managed community banks. Place monetary size and geographical limitations on banks. The big banks are too big, they have too much power, they are anti-competitive, they destroy jobs, they destabilize the economy, and they undermine community cohesion.
Most Important Financial Reform
- user:Tonesvette Oct 13, 2011 1:29 pm
Eliminate the Federal Reserve's monopoly on the creation of fiat money. Instead of Treasury issuing bonds to the Fed and further burdening taxpayers, allow Treasury to issue United States Notes again and eliminate our debt bondage to the Fed.
re: Most Important Financial Reform
- user:reyraton Oct 13, 2011 1:53 pm
Municipal bankruptcies occur because they cannot issue their own currencies. Greece is going to default because they cannot issue their own currency.
Fiat money is a tool. It can be misused, and Greenspan is one of a few folks who own blame for the current recession - but not the only one. Calling for an end to fiat currency, presumably to be replaced with a commodity subject to external speculation but not internal adjustment, is a very, very dangerous prospect.
What are your complaints about fiat currency?
re: Most Important Financial Reform
- user:timcahill98 Oct 14, 2011 10:28 am
Included within this topic, I would like to see a statement about reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932. This, combined with a break-up of the biggest banks in existence today, will go a long way to ensuring we don't have another financial collapse similar to the one we experienced in 2008.
re: Most Important Financial Reform
- user:gwiech Oct 14, 2011 11:37 am
I agree with rey. Moving to a system resembling the gold standard is not a good idea.
Complaint about fiat currency
- user:Tonesvette Oct 14, 2011 6:34 pm
Fiat currencies can work. I don't advocate a return to the gold standard. It is the MONOPOLY issuance of fiat currency that is pernicious. If the governemnt wants to build a road, it should use fiat currency it issues WITHOUT going into debt to a private banking cartel. It would not be very inflationary because a good is being produced in the process. Funding transfer payments on the other hand WOULD be inflationary because there is no corresponding work or product as a result of the money being spent into the economy.
re: Most Important Financial Reform
- user:StargazerA Oct 14, 2011 6:43 pm
If we are also concerned about the state of debtors or the continuing limited economic growth, we might want to not rush to condemn a limited catch-up period of slightly-higher-than-2% inflation (say, 6% or so). Inflation does not inherently harm workers, especially when most workers are also borrowers; it only harms workers if goods inflate without wages accompanying them.
2. Pay for your own bailouts
- user:reyraton Oct 13, 2011 10:38 am
"2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about. It would also deter the endless chase for instant profits through computerized insider-trading schemes like High Frequency Trading, and force Wall Street to go back to the job it's supposed to be doing, i.e., making sober investments in job-creating businesses and watching them grow."
It's unlikely that this measure would actually result in much revenue; historically these measures result in very low revenues and are ultimately ditched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax
Even the Swedes got rid of this idea. Basically, it lowers volume of trading (so revenue generated is small), but doesn't prevent risky asset allocation.
re: 2. Pay for your own bailouts
- [[user:
]] gwiech
According to the article the Swedes gave up on it in 1991 but computerized trading was in its infancy. Now computers do hundreds of thousands of transactions a second and there's no reason to believe that would change with the addition of a tax, especially one as low as .25% as was proposed in S2927.
re: 2. Pay for your own bailouts
- [[user:
]] reyraton
The question wasn't one of tracking, it was that volumes dropped significantly; I think another real threat would be of significant capital flight to foreign exchanges.
re: 2. Pay for your own bailouts
- [[user:
]] pcovery
Thank you (reyraton & gwiech) for debunking this idea. It seemed naive to me but I didn't have the background myself. I'll make a section for proposals with lack of support, until someone else comes along to pick up the "pro" argument.
re: 2. Pay for your own bailouts
- [[user:
]] gwiech
I wasn't talking about tracking. I was talking about how computers do most of the trading now and the number of transactions has gone up exponentially since the early 90s. I seriously doubt that a tax that small would cause a drop the number of transactions in a significant way, even if the big banks spent a ton of money rewriting their software.
4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers.
- user:reyraton Oct 13, 2011 10:40 am
"4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. For starters, we need an immediate repeal of the preposterous and indefensible carried-interest tax break, which allows hedge-fund titans like Stevie Cohen and John Paulson to pay taxes of only 15 percent on their billions in gambling income, while ordinary Americans pay twice that for teaching kids and putting out fires. I defy any politician to stand up and defend that loophole during an election year."
This should be under income tax reform, not financial regulation.
re: 4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers.
- user:occupyboston4ever Oct 13, 2011 11:34 pm
If this movement were to tax on tax reform, it should focus on tax breaks, and not increases in the tax code. To say "Tax the rich" invites class warfare, where as to say "End tax breaks", such as the carried-interest tax break mentioned above, is much more constructive.
3. No public money for private lobbying.
- user:reyraton Oct 13, 2011 10:39 am
"3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress."
This is about corporate personhood, not financial regulation.