Push to break up too-big US banks doesn't sway Fed's Dudley

NEW YORK Thu Nov 7, 2013 2:27pm EST

President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York William Dudley attends a forum organized by Mexico's Central Bank in Mexico City October 15, 2013. REUTERS/Tomas Bravo

President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York William Dudley attends a forum organized by Mexico's Central Bank in Mexico City October 15, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Tomas Bravo

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - One of Wall Street's top regulators on Thursday said he was not yet convinced by the arguments of some lawmakers and at least one fellow Federal Reserve official that breaking up banks that were "too big to fail" was the right way to protect the U.S. financial system.

New York Fed President William Dudley instead repeated his endorsement of so-called living wills for big banks, but said those needed to be twinned with higher capital and liquidity requirements and incentives for bank management to act to stem problems when they first arise.

In the darkest days of the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. government and central bank stepped in to extend funding to Wall Street's biggest banks. The failure at the time of investment bank Lehman Brothers set off a global panic that led to the Great Recession, the effects of which remain today.

Richard Fisher, head of the Dallas Fed, has proposed reorganizing big banks to eliminate the perception that they will be bailed out if they get in trouble.

Meanwhile in Washington, senators Sherrod Brown and David Vitter have introduced a bill that would cap how much banks can borrow, while Elizabeth Warren and other senators want to bring back elements of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law that divided commercial and investment banking.

"I am not yet convinced that breaking up large, complex firms is the right approach," Dudley told a Global Economic Policy Forum at New York University's law school.

Doing so might harm the benefits of size that such banks are able to pass along to U.S. clients, he said.

"The costs incurred in breaking up such firms need to be considered," Dudley said, adding, "the breakup of such firms would not necessarily result in a significant reduction in overall systemic risk if the resulting component firms were still, collectively, systemic."

As for a revised Glass-Steagall, Dudley said it is not obvious that the combination of investment banking and more traditional banking at large institutions was behind the crisis.

While the bank break-bills in Washington are not expected to become law, debate has swirled over whether enough was done in the wake of the crisis to protect the U.S. economy.

The living wills, or resolution plans, are a key component of regulators' efforts to prevent another crisis. The 2010 Dodd-Frank law called for banks to spell out how they could be taken apart in a way that avoids a costly taxpayer bailout.

"Even with an appropriate resolution process in place that ends too big to fail, the consequences of failure will still be messy," Dudley said.

He urged a more "holistic approach" that includes "enhanced prudential standards and initiatives to further reduce the probability of default and the social losses associated with a default, and that (incentivizes) management to intervene early to address incipient problems before they threaten the viability of the firm."

(Reporting by Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

FILED UNDER:
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)
KenLuskin wrote:
If only the corrupt Congressional politicians would correct their horrible mistake, and reinstate Glass-Steagal, the morally bankrupt Wall Street firms would not be able to destroy the country.

Individual investment banks do NOT need huge amounts of capital and the implicit guarantee from the full faith and credit of the USA.

Allowing the criminals on Wall Street to control the nation’s commercial banks is simply moronic.

There would NOT have been a Great Depression, nor the recent version, which is called the Great Recession, if Glass-Steagal had been in place in the years before both of these massive financial collapses.

Wall Street does NOT need huge amounts of capital to be an effective middle man.

Individual investment banks do NOT need to make $$ Billion loans.

Most commercial banks would not be stupid enough to make $$ multi billion loans to some leveraged buyout firm, because there are no huge million fees to the bankers.

As long as Wall Street has the implicit backing of the America, this country will suffer the negative long term consequences.

Wall Street is a short term greed machine, without any concern for the long term consequences of their actions.

Giving these people the full faith and credit of America is just INSANE!

Nov 08, 2013 5:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Recommended Newsletters

Reuters U.S. Top News
A quick-fix on the day's news published with Reuters videos and award-winning news photography and delivered at your choice of one of four times during the day.
Reuters Deals Today
The latest Reuters articles on M&A, IPOs, private equity, hedge funds and regulatory updates delivered to your inbox each day.
Reuters Technology Report
Your daily briefing on the latest tech developments from around the world from Reuters expert tech correspondents.