House and Senate negotiators struggled to meet a self-imposed Thursday deadline to wrap up a massive financial regulation bill, with two sticking points standing in the way of completing legislation.
Submitted by Per Kurowski (not verified) on Fri, 06/25/2010 - 08:59.
Have you ever heard about a financial crisis that happened from lending or investing in anything considered risky? Of course not, they have all started with lending or investments to something that offered more returns than what its perceived risk merited. Even the infamous Dutch tulips, in their own bubble time, would probably have been rated AAA.
That is why the current paradigm of assigning lower capital requirements to what the credit rating agencies perceive as having lower risk, like if they possessed some extraterrestrial sensorial abilities others don’t, is plain ludicrous. That only increases the expected returns from what is perceived as having no risk… precisely what would be prescribed for a financial heart-attack.
And since the Congress and the G20 do not yet get that do not hold your breath waiting for any major progress in financial regulatory reform.
Also, to allow financial regulators to focus so excessively on the risk that lies closest to their heart, namely the risk of default, is, in a world with so many other risks, like the AAA rated BP can attest to, plain scandalous.
The biggest risk for society is that our banks will not perform efficiently their role in allocating capitals and it is always better for them to fail when taking real and worthy risks than to survive or fail taking useless Potemkin risks!
I think it's a bit early to label the administration's financial regulatory reform proposals a "damp squib." This wouldn't be the first time that the run-up to a major policy announcement announcement out of the Obama White House depressed expectations but observers found themselves pleasantly surprised when the details were unveiled.
WASHINGTON — Working against a midnight deadline, negotiators for the White House and congressional Republicans in Congress narrowed their differences Monday on legislation to avert across-the-board tax increases.
Congressional officials familiar with talks between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said one major remaining sticking point was whether to postpone spending cuts that are scheduled to begin on Jan 1.
With just over 24 hours to go until the fiscal cliff deadline, Senate negotiators are still scrambling to come up with a last-minute deal to prevent the huge tax hikes and budget cuts scheduled to go into effect on January 1.
[5:20 pm ET] Thirteen Italian banks suffered additional credit ratings cuts on Monday, which directly led to the losses in Italy and Spain as well as traders are now focused on more cuts to come for Spain. In this WIR, in the section on International Equity Markets, I look at a couple Spanish banks. From Friday’s scoreboard, I could as easily looked at the Italian banks or the French banks or the German banks or the British banks.
I think it's safe to say that the reaction to the White House's financial regulatory reform proposal was cautiously positive. It's not the root-and-branch restructuring that some wanted. But it covers the basics (leverage, systemic risk, derivatives) and offers a few welcome additions (the Consumer Financial Protection Agency).
But is anyone actually sanguine about it being made law?
Comments
What the Congress or the G20 do not understand they cannot fix.
Have you ever heard about a financial crisis that happened from lending or investing in anything considered risky? Of course not, they have all started with lending or investments to something that offered more returns than what its perceived risk merited. Even the infamous Dutch tulips, in their own bubble time, would probably have been rated AAA.
That is why the current paradigm of assigning lower capital requirements to what the credit rating agencies perceive as having lower risk, like if they possessed some extraterrestrial sensorial abilities others don’t, is plain ludicrous. That only increases the expected returns from what is perceived as having no risk… precisely what would be prescribed for a financial heart-attack.
And since the Congress and the G20 do not yet get that do not hold your breath waiting for any major progress in financial regulatory reform.
Also, to allow financial regulators to focus so excessively on the risk that lies closest to their heart, namely the risk of default, is, in a world with so many other risks, like the AAA rated BP can attest to, plain scandalous.
The biggest risk for society is that our banks will not perform efficiently their role in allocating capitals and it is always better for them to fail when taking real and worthy risks than to survive or fail taking useless Potemkin risks!