Fed's Tarullo says Glass-Steagall return not high on his list

WASHINGTON Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:10pm EDT

Federal Reserve Board Governor Daniel Tarullo testifies before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in Washington February 14, 2013. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

Federal Reserve Board Governor Daniel Tarullo testifies before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in Washington February 14, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Gary Cameron

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Federal Reserve official on Monday questioned the latest congressional plan to break up big banks, saying it is unclear whether such a move would prevent the next financial crisis.

Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo, who has been the agency's point man on financial regulation, said regulators should instead crack down on short-term funding methods that leave banks susceptible to runs.

A group of U.S. senators, including Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren and John McCain, an Arizona Republican, unveiled a bill last week to bring back elements of a Depression-era law that divided commercial and investment banking.

The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act comes amid a fierce debate over whether regulators have done enough to oversee banks seen as too big to fail. It would face a tough road to passage in a deeply divided Congress.

"My own sense is that I wouldn't have this approach as high on my list," Tarullo said of efforts to reinstate the divide. "For me, the priority is in short-term wholesale funding."

Warren told reporters last week that banking should be "boring." Glass-Steagall proponents say a firewall is needed to prevent risk taking Wall Street firms from relying on backstops such as the Fed's discount window when they get in trouble.

Warren said regulators fell down on the job by allowing Glass-Steagall to be chipped away until its repeal in 1999 and re-implementing the divide would make the system safer.

Tarullo, who was asked about the proposal on Monday during a forum hosted by Politico, pointed out that many firms that failed during the 2007-2009 crisis were not commercial banks.

"There's some question as to how much that separation would actually prevent the kinds of problems we saw from developing," he said.

He said letting banks rely on repurchase agreements and other short-term funding played a bigger role in the downfall of investment firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

Tarullo has spoken about this issue many times and said earlier this month that regulators planned to address short-term funding risks.

Tarullo also said it could help the economy to have banks that can provide many kinds of funding to clients, but not enough research has been done to determine what those benefits are or whether they exist.

(Reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Karey Van Hall and Andre Grenon)

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 (1)
usagadfly wrote:
The problem is letting investment firms (“investment banks”) piggyback on Federal Deposit Insurance intended to provide protection to individual depositors.

Perhaps depositors without a single beating heart, a human individual in actuality and not some legal “fiction” such as a corporation, should be banned from any sort of Federal tax backed deposit guarantee. Perhaps deposit insurance should be capped at 2 x median household income in the USA. Or perhaps 3 x. In any case, Goldman Sachs and its kin should not be bailed out of horridly bad investment decisions. Let the risk takers go completely broke.

That is called “free enterprise”. If their wealthy investors lose all their money, well they made the decision to give their money to Goldman. I personally did not, and do not want to donate my retirement nor my medicare to them. Sorry, Park Avenue!

Jul 15, 2013 7:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.