UPDATE 2-Geithner voiced concern on US bank limits-sources

Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:21pm EST

* Geithner has concerns over proposed bank limits--sources

* Treasury chief worried about global competitiveness

* Geithner said to question if limits get at main problem (Recasts lede, adds comments from administration official)

By Karey Wutkowski and Steve Eder

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK, Jan 21 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who voiced concern that politics could sacrifice good economic policy, according to financial industry sources.

Geithner is concerned that the proposed limits on big banks' trading and size could impact U.S. firms' global competitiveness, the sources said, speaking anonymously because Geithner has not spoken publicly about his reservations.

He also has concerns that the limits do not necessarily get at the root of the problems and excesses that fueled the recent financial meltdown, the sources said.

A White House official said both Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, worked closely with Paul Volcker, who heads a White House economic recovery board, in developing the proposals.

"The plan was submitted to the president with a unanimous recommendation from the economic team," the official said.

Obama's proposals would prevent banks or financial institutions that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

Obama called for a new cap on the size of banks in relation to the overall financial sector that would take into account not only bank deposits, which are already capped, but also liabilities and other non-deposit funding sources.

A separate administration official noted that Geithner had backed a proposal last fall that did make it into a regulatory reform bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives that would have given regulator power to curb a firm's size.

The new proposals are late additions to a reform effort the administration kicked off last year when it sent thousands of pages in suggested financial rule changes to Congress last year.

They come as the administration has sharpened its rhetoric against Wall Street where the announcement was met with disdain. Bank shares slid and the dollar fell against other currencies. [ID:nN21145261]

The proposals were largely driven by Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who has repeatedly advocated putting curbs on big financial firms to limit their ability to do harm.

The White House official said Obama's economic team considered the concern that proprietary trading was not at the heart of the problems that fueled the financial crisis.

But it concluded that reform needed to be about more than just fighting the last war, it needed to address sources of future risk as well, the official said.

Lawrence White, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business and a former regulator, said Obama's proposals were "a solution to the wrong problem."

"They have this rhetoric that it was proprietary trading that was the problem," White said. "That's wrong."

Obama has recently tried to capitalize on populist anger against the big banks, proposing last week a major tax on banks to recoup taxpayer losses related to the bailout.

He also ratcheted up the anti-Wall Street message when he campaigned over the weekend for Democrat Martha Coakley in her race for the Massachusetts Senate seat. Coakley lost that critical seat to Republican Scott Brown, who Obama painted as a friend of Wall Street.

Underscoring the high level of public anger at banks, a majority of 1,006 Americans surveyed in a Thomson Reuters/Ipsos poll said executive pay was too high. [ID:nN21222779] (Reporting by Karey Wutkowski in Washington and Steve Eder in New York with additional reporting by Jeff Mason and Glenn Somerville; Editing by Kenneth Barry and Diane Craft)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
wrote:
There was a conspiracy theory that the government was responsible for the stock run up. Barron’s debunked this theory in their latest magazine. But what if there was a bit of truth in both. Last Jan. I was given $20,000 with 0% interest, the only requirement was that I used their credit card. The money ended up in a Ameritrade acct. Makes you wonder how much other o% int money ended up in the market, all at the benefit of Uncle Sam!

Jan 21, 2010 7:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Don_Robertson wrote:
Most don’t realize how our credit economy works. Take trading with the retail brokerage -Ameritrade- for instance.

When you buy stocks through Ameritrade, the Ameritrade market makers don’t actually procure the stock for you. They sell you an Ameritrade short sale. Most everyone knows it takes three days to “settle” a stock trade. (It takes three days in an electronic trading system?)

During that three days, your money is gone, or you have been credited money that is gone, AND, you haven’t necessarily bought anything with it, nothing more than a promise of delivery of those shares -if you do not panic and sell within the three days.

It simply is very lucrative to sit back and wait for the price of the stock you wanted -to drop a little more, or come back down to below where you bought it later on, -before Ameritrade actually does anything about your trade.

It’s a sophisticated bait and switch, one that makes Ameritrade lots of money with credit you’ve extended to them, and defeats the purpose you had in mind when you meant to buy -real shares- and watch those shares appreciate in value.

The money you give to Ameritrade in this instance, can be leveraged several times over, often in direct fiduciary conflict with the reason you meant when you expended that money.

Jan 21, 2010 8:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cleary wrote:
Look – maybe exec pay is “too high” (whatever the heck that means). Seems to me that should be monitored by the shareholders, but what do I know? What I do know is that Obama and his idiot crew have no business dictating to the private sector what anyone can make. It’s bad enough we have minimum wage. Now we’re going to have maximum wage? Where are we, Venezuela? Iran? Are we implementing some kind of Maoist law here? Create reasonable regulations about the playing field. Make sure the idiots on your side (like Barney Frank) aren’t gumming up the works in places like Fannie and Freddie. And then get the hell out of the way. Don’t bail out the banks. Let them FAIL if they can’t handle their affairs. No more wards of the state. Let them buy insurance like any other business, and let people go to jail when they commit violations of their fiduciary duties. We need a heavy hand from Obama like a fish needs a hook. Get the hell out of the way, Mr. President.

Jan 21, 2010 10:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.