Geithner voiced concern on US bank limits-sources

Related Topics

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK | Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:23pm EST

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (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.

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.

(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 (5)
BLove wrote:
The President is either one of two things – too naiive to understand that the main street politics Brown in Mass used to advantage in the election touches people because main street connects to Wall St, or he’s too stupid to understand how his proclaimations do damage to the capitalist system that has stood the US well since it’s founding and evolution as a world leading marketplace. He doesn’t like an outcome he reacts petulantly – assigns or fixes blame rather than fix the problem, always with an eye towards the political outcomes. The Chicago way. He’d probably be a decent mayor in Chicago since they’d like him and have elected him each time, but he’s not suited to the job he’s in, not by a long shot.

Jan 22, 2010 9:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
wrote:
The President is playing politics. Instead of leadership he is trying to tap into the populist movement that is anti-Wall Street. The big banks were saved, yes. But they also paid back their loans with a profit to the government. Now, they are to be punished. However, GM, Chrysler, Freddie mac and Freddie may are off the hook, which are never going to make the Fed whole are off the hook. He is punishing accomplishment and rewarding failure. All in the name of populist politics.

Jan 22, 2010 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
MrLayman wrote:
What is moreover disappointing is the government’s inability to acknowledge its failings leading up to this crises. Its failure to manage (regulatory)risk. If I were in the industry of good banks that had failed or suffered in this crises, I’d be doing more to explain to the public just where govt failed in the last 15 years that enabled the market to create such webs of risk.

We have several hundred years of well recorded financial history around the world to know that financial markets are not good at self-discipline; yet we are always happy to enjoy their effect on growth.

The nature of the political motive that stood in the way of regulatory intervention before the crises is of the same that is standing in the way of a real solution, which is reform of the way regulatory risk is reported to the public and managed on an ongoing basis.

Jan 22, 2010 1:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.