Tag Archives: libertarians

Bankers Reject Free Market Ideology and Call for More Regulations and Protections for Investors

Free-market ideologues tend to blame most economic problems on government interference in the market.  And their response to economic crisis is invariably to call for the reduction or elimination of government regulations.

But free-market ideologues are usually pundits, professors, and politicians, and not capitalists themselves.

Real capitalists care less about ideology, and more about what is actually important — that is, capitalism.

That’s why it should come as no surprise that in the face of the potentially catastrophic crisis that is now gripping the banking industry, it is the bankers themselves who are calling for more, rather than less, government regulation.

As the Financial Times reports, “Many of the world’s biggest banks are proposing reforms that would limit the size and scope of their businesses in one of the most dramatic responses to the credit crisis. The proposals would hold down the number of investors who can buy complex financial products, bring large swathes of the derivatives markets into regulators’ sights and call on banks to spend more on technology and risk management.”

“Backed by banks including JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, HSBC, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley, the proposals are being delivered to global regulators in the hope of producing rules for credit markets that would cut risk of contagion and restore confidence.”

Here is the story:  Last week, a panel of high-power bankers calling themselves “Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group III,” lead by Goldman Sachs managing director E. Gerald Corrigan, issued a report to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Mario Draghi, chairman of the international Financial Stability Forum, calling for more regulation and governmental oversight of the banking industry and new standards for monitoring and managing risk.

The Washington Post reports that the bankers’ panel “suggested that big investment houses regularly perform ‘liquidity stress tests’ to measure their expected flexibility in the face of a crisis. It also urged firms to make sure they have accurate snapshots of their exposures to institutional trading partners, with the ability to compile detailed reports within hours.”

“In the current crisis, ‘some of the worst failures were in risk monitoring, which was before you even got to risk management,’ Corrigan, a former chief executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said in an interview.”

Included in the panel’s recommendations is a prohibition on selling high-risk and complex financial products to anyone except “sophisticated investors.” 

According to the Financial Times, under the panel’s recommendations “even pension funds and other institutional investors would no longer be automatically allowed to buy bonds backed by assets such as subprime mortgages. All but the wealthiest retail investors would be barred from buying structured products, such as auction rate securities, a $330bn market used by municipalities and student loan providers to raise funds.”

Corrigan said “the ‘markets had been sandbagged by complexity’ and suggested the new rules would help ensure sophisticated financial products were only sold to investors with the resources and skills to understand and monitor them.”

We agree with the panel’s report and recommendations. 

It is long overdue that investors in financial products have at least the kind of “qualified investor” protections that exist under the Securities and Exchange Act — both for the sake of the investors and the stabiliity of the financial markets.

And it is good to see that real capitalists care more about preserving the world’s financial markets than about preserving some ideologically pure notion of free-market capitalism.

On other hand, in the short term, it would not be good for the economy if the banks used these recommendations as a rationale to further restrict the availability of credit to qualified borrowers.

Advertisements

Who is Still Against Federal Foreclosure Legislation?

As the Congress comes closer to passing legislation to help homeowners facing foreclosure, it is worth taking a look at the opposition to federal foreclosure aid.

Of course, there are those who strictly oppose nearly all forms of government intervention in the economy.  Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul and his free market libertarian supporters would be among this group.

Then are those who are opposed to market interventions in general, but will support some government interventions when the stability of the market is at stake.  Most Republicans fit into this group — including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

That’s why it was significant that it was Bernanke who last week made the most convincing argument from a free market perspective for federal aid to homeowners facing foreclosure.

As we noted in an earlier post, Bernanke told an audience at the Columbia Business School that the foreclosure crisis posed the clear and present danger of wreaking economic havoc far beyond the housing market. “High rates of delinquency and foreclosure,” Bernanke said, “can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets, and the broader economy.”

What is at stake, according to Bernanke, is not merely the homes and financial well-being of hundreds of thousands of borrowers, but “the stability of the financial system.”  In this extreme circumstance, even staunch free market advocates, such as Bernanke himself, recognize the need for the government to intervene in the market.

We think, then, that the overwhelming vote in the House of Representives in favor of government intervention to stop the rising tide of foreclosures — legislation that now has the support of many free market Republicans — was rooted at least as much in the economic reality of averting catastrophe as the political expediency of government largess in an election year.

Who then is still opposed to foreclosure aid?

The answer is the apartment owners.

Behind any legislative process is a power struggle of conflicting interests, and very often these interests are economic.  In the case of foreclosure aid, there this now a growing consensus that the foreclosure crisis threatens not merely the borrowers and the lenders, but the economy as a whole and hence the economic interests of almost every sector of the economy.

Except apartment owners.

The National Multi-Housing Council (NMHC) and the National Apartment Association (NAA) have consistently argued that the blame for the foreclosure crisis is what they have called the “misguided” national policy of “home ownership at any cost” and that “People were enticed into houses they could not afford and the rarely spoken truth that there is such a thing as too much homeownership was forgotten.”

The fact is that in sharp contrast to other sectors of the real estate market, the apartment industry has not suffered as a result of the current housing crisis.  Rather, as we’ve noted before, the real estate crisis is forcing the lower end of the single-family housing market back into multi-family rental apartments.  People have to live somewhere — if they can’t afford to live in a house that they own, they will be forced to live in a house that someone else owns, such as multi-family apartment units. As homeowners suffer, apartment owners benefit.

The apartment industry has some very powerful supporters in Congress, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.   Senator Shelby,  who has opposed federal intervention to stop foreclosures, has made millions as a landlord and is the owner of a 124-unit apartment complex in Tuscaloosa called the Yorktown Commons. 

“I want the market to work if it can, and most of the time it will, but not without some pain,”  Senator Shelby has said.

This time, the pain appears to be too great, too wide-spread, and too dangerous, for most other members of Congress, as well as most important players in the economy, to allow it to continue unabated.

Indeed, Shelby has already signaled that he would support a version of the legislation — and that the White House would sign the bill into law.

“I think if we reach a compromise,” Shelby said, “it would be acceptable to the White House because, as a Republican and former chairman of the committee, I’m going to do everything I can, work with the administration, to make sure that the program works for those it’s intended to do and make sure we can afford it as a nation.”

In this crisis, even Senator Shelby has other, larger, and more important economic interests at stake than helping the apartment industry.