Financial Reform Watch : Financial Services News & Information : Blank Rome Government Relations Lobbying Firm : Government Relations, Corporate Governance : Financial Reform Watch Law Blog

Of the 87 studies required by the Dodd Frank Act, one may get a bump up the priority list thanks to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in CompuCredit v. Greenwood, which upheld the rights of companies to include mandatory arbitration clauses in their user agreements. Several consumer groups disagreed with the court’s ruling and are calling on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to get involved sooner rather than later. Section 1028 of Dodd Frank directs the CFPB to conduct a study and report to Congress on restricting mandatory pre-dispute arbitration, however, Congress set no deadline for completing the study. Once the CFPB does complete the study, the bureau has the authority to “prohibit or impose conditions or limitations” (via regulation) on arbitration agreements. The bureau’s rules must be consistent with the study.

The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) recently issued a release protesting the court’s decision and pressing the CFPB to get started on the study. “The Supreme Court decision makes it all the more urgent for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop companies from using forced arbitration clauses to hide from the law,” said the group’s managing attorney Lauren Saunders. Saunders added, “Forced arbitration puts a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of predatory lenders...”

There are also bills in Congress that would amend the Federal Arbitration Act so that pre-dispute arbitration agreements would be invalid and unenforceable if they concern disputes related to employment, consumers, or civil rights. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 (S. 987), sponsored by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), asserts that mandatory arbitration clauses were “intended to apply to disputes between commercial entities of generally similar sophistication and bargaining power,” not consumers. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is sponsoring companion legislation (HR 1873) in the House. Both bills are sitting in their respective judiciary committees and not expected to move any time soon in this contentious election year. FRW is watching the CFPB for the next move.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This morning, Senate Republicans made good on their promise to block former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray’s nomination as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Senate voted 53-45 to proceed with the confirmation, falling short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. All but two Republicans voted to sustain the filibuster. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is the only Republican Senator to publicly support Cordray, likely because he finds himself in a tight Senate race against CFPB architect Elizabeth Warren. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who was one of only three Republicans to vote for Dodd-Frank, voted present.

So what comes next? The general consensus is: Nothing.

The House has taken steps over the last several months to prevent a recess appointment, and will likely continue to do so. The Obama Administration has not shown any sign of willingness to back down and change the bureau’s structure, nor is nominating another potential director likely to do any good. Republicans have made it clear that their hesitation has nothing to do with any individual candidate (though many believe Cordray was chosen in part because he is far less controversial than Warren); and no Senator on either side is likely to flip-flop on this issue going into an election year. In all likelihood, both sides will use it as a talking point throughout the 2012 election, with Democrats blaming Republicans for handicapping an agency aimed at protecting consumers and Republicans blaming Democrats for creating a regulatory agency without sufficient mechanisms to limit the director’s authority.

The Obama Administration has fought to rally support around Cordray in recent months. The CFPB has been operating without a director since it opened its doors on July 21, 2011, meaning that its authority is limited to banks and does not extend to non-banking financial institutions, including debt collectors, payday lenders and mortgage servicers. In May, 44 Republicans Senators sent a letter to President Obama vowing to block any nominee for director until the Bureau is restructured, namely by replacing its single director with a 5-person board. Senate Republican leaders have said that they are still waiting for a response to their letter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, Father of Financial Regulatory Reform, and 16-term Congressman announced today that he will not be seeking re-election in 2012. Regardless of politics, few can deny that Rep. Frank has been a giant in the U.S. Congress, particularly in the financial sector, and that he will leave enormous shoes to fill. Within hours of the announcement, rumors began to circulate as to which Democrat will assume his prized seat on the financial services committee. Here are the top contenders:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA):

Rep. Waters, the second most senior Democrat on the committee, is believed by many to be the top choice, and sources say she wasted no time this afternoon before lobbying Members for support. Now in her 11th term in Congress, Waters is the Ranking Member of the powerful Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises and has chaired the Congressional Black Caucus. While Waters is the heir apparent, there may be obstacles in her way. She is currently under investigation by the House ethics committee for three alleged violations. The investigation will certainly continue into 2012. If the committee finds she violated House rules and/or refers her case to the Justice Department, her chances for committee leadership may diminish.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY):

Rep. Maloney is next in line after Waters and will certainly rise in influence following Rep. Frank’s departure. Elected in 1993, Maloney has a long history as an active, comparatively moderate member of the committee, and also has ties to the home of the nation’s financial sector. Rep. Maloney has chaired the Joint Economic Committee as well as the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. She was also the author of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, also known as the “Credit Card Bill of Rights,” and has been called “the best friend a credit card user ever had.” Given the controversy surrounding Waters and industry’s potential preference for a more moderate voice, some speculate that Maloney could surpass Waters and take the top spot.

The speculation will certainly continue throughout the coming year, but no definitive answer will come until the 113th Congress is sworn in in 2013.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Regulations to implement the Volcker Rule have hit the street. Now a new phase of the battle to reign-in proprietary trading by banks is at hand. If past is prologue, a tough and divisive battle looms. Meanwhile, the industry, regulators and customers will be dealing with the uncertainty that has bedeviled all concerned since Dodd-Frank was enacted.

How did we get here? How did a ten-page provision in legislative language end up being a 298 page proposed rule? When the industry, its lobbyists, its supporters on Capitol Hill and regulators all do what they do best, a complicated, lengthy and unwieldy set of rules is the result.
From the beginning, the banking industry has been openly opposed to the Volcker Rule. The effort to sidetrack it was unsuccessful, but the legislation did provide for exceptions to the rule to be developed by regulators.

That created the opening, and ever since enactment of the bill, industry representatives have been working to ensure the proposed regulations define, as generously as possible, the types of exceptions under which banks may trade through their own accounts. Regulators made an attempt to deal with all these issues. The resulting rules regarding market making trades, trades with and for international customers and others will allow limited proprietary trading to take place.

Now the rule is under attack by some for being too weak and others for being too cumbersome and unwieldy. Congressional hearings and proposals to repeal the Volcker Rule can be expected. A classic Washington stand-off is unfolding.

All of this will extend the uncertainty hanging over this process. The industry and its supporters may well harbor hopes that a Republican victory in the 2012 election would result in both Houses of Congress and the White House being in the hands of those supporting Volcker Rule repeal. So it may well be deep into 2013 before anyone can confidently assert the Volcker Rule process is complete.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released its proposed “Volcker Rule,” Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee were quick to announce hearings on the proposed regulations.

It’s a Dodd-Frank paradigm that we have come to know all too well: regulators continue to make slow progress to implement the many rulemakings required under the financial reform law, and with each new regulation, Republicans haven’t been far behind, working to repeal, scale back or defund every move the regulators have made. The hotly-contested Volcker Rule has proven to be no exception.

A House Financial Services Committee spokesman said the hearing will look at the economic impact and competitiveness of the proposed rule. The hearing will likely take place in early November.

The draft rule, which was formally released by the FDIC on October 11th and was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission this morning, is 205 pages and seeks to ban banks or institutions that own banks from engaging in proprietary trading that isn’t at the behest of their clients and from owning or investing in hedge funds or private equity funds. The rule would also limit the liabilities the largest banks could hold and preclude those banks from gaining from or hedging against short-term price movements in the securities and derivatives markets. The proposal includes exceptions for market making for customers and for hedging against risky trades made on customers’ behalf.

Proponents say that the rule will eliminate the need for future bailouts, though some are already making the case that the rule doesn’t go far enough, and it defined proprietary trading too narrowly. Major financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have already closed their proprietary trading desks in anticipation of the rule, though firms continue to argue that the rule is unnecessary, difficult to implement, and will harm their ability to compete in the global market. The GAO released a report this past summer on the Volcker Rule, noting the difficulty in detecting proprietary trading and calling it “cumbersome” and “difficult to enforce.”
The rule will be open for comment until January 2012 and would take effect on July 21, 2012 – the second anniversary of Dodd-Frank; though some say certain banks would have until 2017 to fully comply.

The Volcker Rule is a proposal by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to restrict U.S. banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. Volcker argued that this kind of proprietary trading, where deposits are used to trade on the bank’s personal accounts, played a key role in the 2008 financial crisis.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has said that it may put forth its own version of the Volcker rule. Scott O’Malia, a Republican commissioner at the CFTC, said he spoke to CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler on Friday and quoted the chairman as saying, "We might, if it's the will of the commission, put forward ... a virtually identical proposal with the other regulators, or we could go it alone." O’Malia continued, "He's not committing either way."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), for whom Dodd-Frank is named, as well as Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Carl Levin (D-MI), who first introduced the Volcker rule during the Dodd-Frank debate last summer, have yet to publicly comment on the proposed rule.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development voted this morning to confirm former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The committee approved the nomination by a party-line vote of 12 to 10, with all Republican members voting against, as they have repeatedly vowed to do until the CFPB is restructured. The nomination must now come to a vote before the full Senate to complete Mr. Cordray’s confirmation. However, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has united the Republican caucus to block the nomination (until the bureau is restructured), and it is unclear when the Senate will actually take up the nomination. The CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and officially opened its doors on July 21, 2011, but its powers are limited until it has a Senate-confirmed director.

The Senate Committee also unanimously approved the nominations of Alan B. Krueger to be a Member of the Council of Economic Advisers; David A. Montoya to be Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Cyrus Amir-Mokri to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Patricia M. Loui to be a Member of the Board of Directors, Export-Import Bank of the United States; and Larry W. Walther to be a Member of the Board of Directors, Export-Import Bank of the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the year since the passage of Dodd-Frank, House Republicans have launched a number of attacks against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), calling it wasteful, inefficient, and incompetent and blaming it for problems ranging from the Madoff Ponzi scheme to the 2008 financial crisis. The SEC has been called anti-free market, anti-business and anti-Main Street, but during yesterday’s day-long House Financial Services Committee hearing on SEC Oversight, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) came up with a new one; saying, “The SEC is fracking crazy!”

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has plenty of experience being on the defensive, but yesterday even she appeared stunned as legislators asked her why the SEC is overstepping the EPA’s authority and regulating hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process used to access underground reserves of natural gas and oil. Shapiro insisted that the SEC’s questions about fracking have been strictly limited to assessing the actual value of oil and gas reserves as printed in investor disclosure documents. However, several reports now claim that the SEC has asked for specific information regarding the chemicals being used as well as companies’ efforts to minimize environmental impacts, asserting that those inquiries cannot reasonably relate to valuing the assets. Further, many companies are now alleging that the SEC is requiring them to disclose proprietary information which could harm their ability to compete.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) asked Ms. Schapiro about the sources of payments to defrauded Madoff investors as well as the details of several bankruptcy cases where millions of dollars of state and federal funds were lost in bankruptcy. When Ms. Schapiro said that she was not familiar with those cases, Rep. Pearce responded that he was confused as to why the SEC is focusing its energies on regulating fracking while complaining that it lacks the resources to perform its basic duties.

While the true details of the SEC’s interest in fracking may never come to light, House Republicans are conducting vigorous SEC oversight and holding the agency to a standard that it has never in its very mixed history proven it is able to meet. Members continue to argue that the SEC will not receive more funding until it becomes more effective, and the SEC continues to insist that it cannot become more effective until it receives more funding. It’s a Catch-22 without an obvious solution.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For one of the first times in the Dodd-Frank debate, House Democrats and financial services industry leaders find themselves on the same side of the debate over harmonization of fiduciary standards for investment advisers and broker-dealers. Meanwhile, as the SEC opens the door for the designation of self-regulatory organizations, House Republicans appear to be at a turning point.

Fourteen months ago, banks were railing against the idea of adopting a single fiduciary standard for both investment advisers and broker-dealers, saying that it paints two very different services with the same brush and harms U.S. firms’ ability to compete worldwide. But in a hearing yesterday, stakeholders appear to have reached a compromise, following the publication of the SEC study, mandated under Section 913 of Dodd-Frank, which called for the development of a fiduciary standard for broker-dealers. The SEC staff recommended harmonizing regulation of investment advisers and broker-dealers and establishing a fiduciary duty for both, but does not subject them both to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“the ’40 Act”), as industry feared. The study also suggests three possible approaches to regulatory reform, including designating self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to oversee broker-dealers.

Winners:

• Banks, for their part, got most of what they wanted. The SEC report failed to show any empirical evidence demonstrating a need for the change, and it concluded that subjecting broker dealers to the ’40 Act would be inappropriate, as banks have maintained from the offset.
• House Democrats appeared pleased with the proposals, which will increase regulation of financial professionals and could open the door for additional funding for the cash-strapped SEC. Further, industry called for any regulatory actions to be performed with strict Congressional oversight, preserving a strong government role in the financial sector for the foreseeable future.

Losers:

• The SEC’s report has been criticized by stakeholders on both sides of the debate for failing to include enough empirical evidence of a problem, opening the door for many to criticize regulators for, once again, regulating for regulation’s sake. Further, the commission was lambasted throughout the hearing for its demonstrated inability to carry out its many new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank. When faced with a choice between ceding some authority to FINRA or being tasked with additional regulatory responsibilities it cannot afford, it is tough to see an upside for the agency.
• The Department of Labor’s proposal to broaden the definition of fiduciary standard to more financial professionals, including those who oversee IRAs, drew criticism from all sides as being ill-conceived and damaging to those who are already struggling to save for retirement in a volatile economic climate.

TBD:

• FINRA’s request to be designated as an SRO has the support of House Republicans as well as industry and could be an opportunity to scale back, even slightly, the growing government role in the financial sector and demonstrate that self-regulation can work. On the other hand, as House Democrats appear determined to paint the organization as “the ones that missed Madoff,” regulation could end up in the hands of the SEC.
• House Republicans maintain that there has not been a demonstrated need for reform and are using the Department of Labor’s proposal as evidence of the Obama Administration’s desire to over-regulate and expand the size of government. However, the reforms seem to be moving forward regardless of the criticisms. The House GOP could score a big win if Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus’s (R-AL) proposal to designate FINRA as an SRO becomes law and the private sector is able to regain some autonomy. If not, the SEC’s role will continue to grow and Republicans will face renewed pressure to increase its funding.

The SEC has yet to propose rules related to its study, and Rep. Bachus has not said when his legislation, still in draft form, will be introduced.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Amid rumors that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau creator Elizabeth Warren is planning to take on one Senate Republican, it appears she’s decided to go to battle against all of them.

The former Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published an op-ed yesterday where she announced that she has started a petition calling on Senate Republicans to confirm Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of the CFPB and to protect the interests of middle class families, rather than those of big banks.

Warren has certainly amped up her rhetoric since leaving Washington this summer and returning to Harvard Law School. The once-reserved Warren called Republican’s behavior “outrageous” and said she was “proud to have been part of the David vs. Goliath effort that led to the passage of this new agency.”

“I've made my life's work fighting for middle class families and pushing back against special interests. I know what it means to live one pink slip or one health crisis away from economic disaster, because I did. That's why I'm working so hard to change things,” Warren wrote.

Her petition, “Tell Senate Republicans: Let the CFPB Do Its Work!” states, “The big banks and their army of lobbyists couldn't stop the creation of a new [CFPB], so now they are trying to undermine its work, enlisting their Republicans friends on the Senate Banking Committee. It's outrageous — and we've got to hold them accountable."

Forty-four Senate Republicans signed a letter earlier this year, vowing to block any nominee for CFPB director until structural changes are made to the bureau.

The petition is posted on the “Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts” website, the official website of her exploratory committee as she considers running against Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown in 2012. Sen. Brown was one of three Republicans not to sign the letter and has remained largely silent on the issue, despite being one of the swing votes to pass the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection and Financial Regulatory Reform Act, which created the bureau. Warren has yet to announce her candidacy, but key Massachusetts Democrats say the announcement is coming soon. Sen. Brown, who defeated Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in a special election following the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)’s death, has been surprisingly popular in notoriously liberal Massachusetts, but recent polls suggest that Warren could give him a run for his money, polling only 9 points behind the incumbent this week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During yesterday’s Senate Banking Committee nomination hearing, Senators on both sides of the aisle assured Richard Cordray, the president’s nominee for director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that he is not the problem.

Tuesday’s nomination hearing stood in stark contrast to the hearings held in both the House and the Senate over the past year, where CFPB creator  and once-presumed director Elizabeth Warren faced harsh, often personal attacks from many House and Senate Republicans. Cordray, on the other hand, received nothing but compliments from committee members, who instead launched their criticisms at each other and/or the structure of the new bureau.

Democrats blasted Senate Republicans for stalling the confirmation process. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) touted the many checks imposed on the director’s authority, saying that Republican “claims that the CFPB is not accountable are little more than efforts to destroy this important agency.” He went on to accuse his GOP colleagues of “playing political games” and “holding Mr. Cordray’s nomination hostage.” His fellow Democrats echoed these criticisms, asking Cordray if he had heard a single member of the Senate question his qualifications to lead the CFPB (he had not) and blasting Republicans for trying to “re-legislate” a bill which was passed by the Congress with (albeit minimal) bipartisan support.

Republicans maintained their contention that the CFPB lacks sufficient checks and balances and reiterated their promise to block the confirmation until structural changes are made to the bureau. Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) said that the hearing was “quite premature” and criticized President Obama and Senate Democrats for “ignoring the reasonable reforms” Senate Republicans proposed earlier this year. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said that he was “shocked” by how partisan the committee had become and by “how many mistruths were being spewed” by Democrats. Corker asserted that the CFPB clearly lacks meaningful accountability and cited as evidence the language in Dodd-Frank instructing that the director’s actions can only be overruled by the Financial Stability Oversight Council if those actions “undermine the stability of the U.S. Financial System.” Both Sen. Shelby and Sen. Corker apologized to Cordray about being “caught up in all of this,” but warned that the Republicans will not give in until the changes are made.

While the Democrats have the votes to advance the nomination out of committee, 44 Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have vowed to block any nominee for director until the CFPB is restructured, and as of yet, neither side shows any signs of compromise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It’s been called the birthday; the anniversary; the implementation deadline; the day the doors open; the transfer date; the rulemaking deadline; and more. By whatever terminology, July 21, 2011, Dodd-Frank’s first birthday, should have been a big day. When the countdown ended, however, and Thursday finally rolled around, it all began to feel a bit anti-climactic.

The Rulemakings: Of the 163 required rulemakings that had to be finalized by July 21, only 33, a mere 20 percent have been completed. Overall, only 51, or 13 percent of the total rulemakings required by Dodd-Frank have been finalized. Between the two key deadlines – July 16 (360 days after passage) and July 21 (one year after passage) – there were 117 rulemaking requirements, only 13 of which were actually met. There remain 104 requirements, or 88 percent, that have yet to be fulfilled.

The Studies: Dodd-Frank also requires a multitude of studies, and on the whole, agencies have been more successful in completing those on time. Regulators only failed to complete 3 of the 17 studies required this quarter.

The Agencies: The CFPB, the most anticipated of the new agencies, officially opened on Thursday, but has limited authority until it has a confirmed director. The SEC has missed the most deadlines, at 54, followed closely by the CFTC, which has missed 39. Both SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro and CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler have blamed the delays on limited resources, saying that unless they receive considerable funding increases, the delays will only continue. Regulators will spend $400 million implementing Dodd-Frank in 2011. That number is expected to triple to $1.2 billion in 2012, as regulatory agencies continue to add staff and increase oversight efforts. The House Appropriations Committee passed bills imposing deep cuts in the regulators’ budgets. Those bills have yet to come to a vote before the full House and are unlikely to pass the Senate. Under statute, regulators are also empowered to assess fees to the firms they regulate to bring in additional revenue.

The Leadership: Four regulatory agencies lack key leadership personnel, and all have significant staffing left to do. The president’s nominees for chairman of the FDIC, Comptroller of the Currency and a Member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council are set to appear before the Senate Banking Committee tomorrow. A hearing date has yet to be set for the president’s most controversial nomination, that of director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senate Republicans have vowed to block any nominee for CFPB director, but have not vocally opposed the other nominations.

By all accounts, the first year of Dodd-Frank was just the beginning, but as Republicans in Congress continue their efforts to chip away at financial reform, it remains to be seen how many anniversaries it will take for Dodd-Frank to become a reality.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The nation’s leading financial regulators took their battle for more implementation and enforcement funding to Capitol Hill Thursday. Their testimony was offered on the first anniversary of the signing of the Dodd-Frank Act.The witness panel at the Senate Banking Committee consisted of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), for whom the Act was named; Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin; Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke; Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Shapiro; Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler; Federal Deposit Insurance Commission Acting Chairman Martin Gruenberg; and Acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh. Not represented was the agency whose funding is most controversial – the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB opened its doors for business today.

The witnesses met with the mixed response they must have expected . Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) opened the hearing by applauding the regulators for their work over the past year and emphasized that “Congress must do its part” to actively oversee the implementation of Dodd-Frank in the years to come. Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL), on the other hand, expressed his frustration with the law, saying that it “provides little comfort to millions of Americans who are facing harsh economic realities.” Sen. Shelby went on to say that when Dodd-Frank was being considered in the Senate the-Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), for whom the bill is also named, assured him that there would be strong oversight and accountability in the regulatory agencies. Shelby said he regrets that that hasn’t been the case.

Each of the regulators devoted his or her testimony to justifying the regulatory delays and petitioning for increased funding from Congress. Gensler said that regulations have been delayed because “It is more important to get it right, than to work against the clock.” Shapiro argued that the regulators cannot possibly fulfill all of their new responsibilities without increased resources.

Regulatory agencies have taken a hit in House Republicans’ latest attacks on Dodd-Frank. The House Financial Services Appropriations bill slashed several regulators’ budgets to levels at or below their pre-Dodd-Frank budgets, when they had far fewer responsibilities. Frank criticized the cuts during his testimony, saying that Congress can’t argue that it can’t afford to fund regulatory agencies when it continues to spend billions of dollars in overseas conflicts. It should be noted, the Senate Banking Committee is not the venue to battle the funding cuts suggested by the House Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee will take up the spending plan for most of these agencies later this year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, July 18, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Cordray, aged 52, graduated from Michigan State University’s James Madison College and went on to study Economics at the University of Oxford as a Marshall Scholar. He later attended the University of Chicago Law School, and in 1987, Cordray was a five-time champion and Tournament of Champions semifinalist on Jeopardy!

After graduating from law school, Cordray clerked for Associate Justices Byron R. White and Anthony M. Kennedy in the U.S. Supreme Court. He later served in the Ohio State House of Representatives. In 1992 Cordray ran for the U.S. House of Representatives but was defeated. In September 1993, he was named Ohio’s first Solicitor General. In late 1996, Cordray was a top contender for United States Attorney during President Bill Clinton’s second term but was not selected. In 1998, Cordray lost his bid for Ohio Attorney General and ran for U.S. Senate in 2000 but lost. Cordray served as Franklin County Treasurer from 2002-2007 and Ohio State Treasurer from 2007-2009. In 2009, he ran for Ohio Attorney General and served for 2 years but lost re-election in 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In her last act before leaving Washington this week, Elizabeth Warren, Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, while the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development also took on the CFPB in its own hearing. At both hearings, Republicans made it clear that they are concerned about the bureau’s lack of accountability. Many reiterated the Republican leadership’s promise to block any nominee for director until the bureau’s management is restructured.

On July 14, Elizabeth Warren testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs in a hearing entitled, “Consumer Financial Protection Efforts: Answers Needed.” Twenty-seven Members of the 40-member committee attended the four-hour hearing and questioned Ms. Warren on issues ranging from her vision for the bureau to its budget and oversight authority.

Throughout the hearing, the committee was visibly polarized. On one side, Republicans, led by Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), argued that the bureau needs significantly more Congressional oversight and also needs to do more to preserve personal liberty, giving the American people the ability to make financial choices for themselves, rather than forcing them toward “what’s best for them.” On the other side, Democrats, headed by Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) insisted that the CFPB is as accountable as any other financial regulator and said that the issue is a matter of putting consumers’ interests above those of big Wall Street banks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could soon oversee 100,000 firms, bureau officials said last week. Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB leadership held a press call Thursday, outlining six areas that could soon be subject to CFPB oversight. The six areas are debt collection; consumer reporting; consumer credit and related activities; money transmitting, check cashing and related activities; prepaid cards and debt relief services. The bureau is not permitted to begin regulating non-bank firms until a director is confirmed, which is not likely to happen before the July 21, 2011 Dodd-Frank implementation date when the bureau officially opens its doors.

While the Obama Administration said that the CFPB’s ability to oversee these non-bank product is key to reigning in the previously unregulated “shadow banking” industry, House Republicans continue their attacks on the bureau, and have vowed to go to any lengths necessary to block President Obama from naming Elizabeth Warren as the bureau’s director through a recess appointment. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said he is concerned that the CFPB will have “virtually unchecked” power.

The CFPB is currently seeking comment on how it should supervise non-bank firms. The comment period will be open until mid-August, and the final regulations must be in place by July 21, 2012, according to the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection and Wall Street Reform Act.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While the SEC and CFTC may be stalled in completing new regulations of the financial sector, the Obama Administration is moving ahead full-force, introducing a Cybersecurity Proposal that could mean changes for the financial sector.

As it stands, there are 48 different state cybersecurity statutes, making it difficult for large, national and international firms to navigate the complex regulatory structure, particularly when state statutes conflict. The Administration’s proposal would create a single, national cybersecurity and data breach notification standard, which many companies say will make compliance easier.

Not so for financial firms, however. The majority of existing state statutes exempt financial firms, leaving the industry to be governed by its own best practices and agency guidance. Under the proposal, many financial firms will be designated covered critical infrastructure, and thus subject to additional regulations and oversight in the interest of protecting national economic security. These entities will be required to establish and submit cybersecurity and risk mitigation plans, and will be subject to period evaluations by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The financial services industry has come out largely in support of the measure, saying that a national standard will simplify compliance and codify the efforts that financial firms are already making, though it has called for more sector-specific regulation by individual agencies, rather than by DHS.

House Republicans have come out strongly against the proposal. During a hearing last month, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said mandatory federal standards are unrealistic given how quickly technology advances and cybersecurity needs change. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) expressed concerns that the “voluntary” information-sharing described in the bill isn’t truly voluntary when the federal government has the ability to “make life miserable for private-sector companies.” The Administration counters that the proposal takes a “light touch” when regulating privately-owned critical infrastructure. Senate Republicans have yet to weigh in, and it is unclear how active they will be on this issue, when not a single Republican Senator attended Wednesday’s Senate Banking Committee Hearing on Data Security in the Financial Sector.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The House Financial Services Committee voted Wednesday to approve several measures that would scale back provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

As lawmakers prepare for the bill’s July 21, 2011 implementation date, House Republicans passed several measures narrowing the scope of the bill, including a measure that would exempt companies that manage up to $50 million in securities from having to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission; a bill exempting most private equity fund advisers from having to register with the SEC; a bill repealing the provision in Dodd-Frank requiring publically-traded companies to disclose their employees’ median compensation separately from their CEO pay packages; and a bill creating a legal framework for the use of covered bonds.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said that all of the bills were designed to create jobs. Reps. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Robert Hurt (R-VA) and Nan Hayworth (R-NY), who introduced three of the provisions, said their bills remove burdensome regulations that are both costly and unnecessary for small businesses.

Throughout the markup, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), ranking member of the committee and one of the architects of Dodd-Frank, expressed his frustrations with the various new provisions and made several failed attempts to amend them. When House Republicans said that they were concerned about finding sufficient funding for the SEC to fulfill all of its new regulatory obligations, Frank said that Congress should not scale back regulation because of budgetary limitations, citing the cost of the war in Afghanistan, and saying that the Congress can certainly find the necessary funding for the regulatory agencies. He went on to say that the costs of failing to regulate the financial markets are significantly higher.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 25, 2011, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") adopted final rules implementing the new "Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection" provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank Act"). The new provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act direct the SEC to pay awards, under certain conditions, to whistleblowers who voluntarily provide the SEC with significant information leading to successful SEC enforcement actions. Specifically, to be considered for an award, a whistleblower must voluntarily provide the SEC with original information that leads to the successful enforcement by the SEC of a federal court or administrative action in which the SEC obtains monetary sanctions totaling more than $1 million.

Although the final rules contain several revisions to the proposed rules issued on November 3, 2010, a number of the incentives energizing the plaintiff's bar remain. For example, the final rules encourage—but still do not require—that a whistleblower report possible violations of federal securities laws internally before contacting the SEC directly. In addition, even though the final rules extend the time period in which a whistleblower may report a possible violation to the SEC after utilizing an internal complaint procedure from 90 to 120 days, the modest increase continues to place significant pressure on an employer's ability to conduct an effective internal investigation. The final rules also exclude certain individuals from consideration for an award, add a “reasonable belief” requirement to the anti-retaliation protections, and modify the definition of "whistleblower"—by requiring that a whistleblower provide information about a "possible violation . . . that has occurred, is ongoing, or is about to occur." The final rules will be effective 60 days after they are submitted to Congress or published in the Federal Register.

If you would like further information about the SEC's Final Rules implementing the Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act or whistleblower and retaliation claims generally, please contact a member of Blank Rome LLP's Employment, Benefits and Labor Practice Group.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Federal regulators are continuing to field an array of questions and concerns from lawmakers surrounding the implementation of Dodd-Frank’s derivatives provisions (Title VII) – and it’s not just coming from House Republicans.

In a letter sent on Tuesday to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairwoman Sheila Bair, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Gary Gensler and acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh, New York’s two Democratic Senators and 16 of New York’s 29 Representatives expressed concerns that a proposed rule applying margin requirements to derivatives between non-U.S. subsidiaries of U.S. entities and non-U.S. counterparties would create a significant competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms operating internationally.

The letter, signed by 12 Democrats and 6 Republicans, went on to state that “disparate treatment of U.S. firms will only encourage participants in the derivatives markets to do business with non-U.S. firms,” and asked that U.S. regulators work with their international counterparts to ensure that the international regulations “perfectly mirror the U.S. rules.” Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) expressed similar concerns during a Senate hearing on March 3, stating that “having a different set of rules that govern similar transactions [internationally] could have negative impacts in the markets.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With near-perfect unity, Senate Republicans joined their House counterparts this week in calling for significant structural reforms to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). And unlike the House, the Senate can take hostages.

On Monday, 44 Republican Senators sent a letter to President Obama threatening to block any CFPB director nominee—regardless of party affiliation—unless their concerns regarding the new agency’s structure and lack of appropriate accountability mechanisms are addressed by Congress. Senators Scott Brown (MA) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were the only Republicans not to sign the letter.

Specifically, the GOP letter calls for the adoption of reforms in three main areas, including:

• Leadership Structure - Alter the CFPB’s leadership structure from that of a single director to a board of directors, similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve Board, or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). GOP senators expressed concern that Dodd-Frank “failed to provide any real checks on the CFPB director’s powers” by providing limited tools for Congress or the administration to remove a director for poor performance and granting the director with “unfettered authority” over the CFPB’s annual budget.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Coinciding with Elizabeth Warren’s inaugural testimony before Congress in her capacity as Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Wednesday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) revived a dormant proposal that would decentralize the leadership of what Bachus calls the “most powerful agency that’s ever been created in Washington.”

Joined by 26 GOP colleagues, Bachus introduced H.R.1121, the Responsible Consumer Financial Protection Regulations Act, legislation that would replace the position of CFPB Director with a five-member Commission consisting of members that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, H.R. 1121 requires the commission to be comprised of no more than three members of the same political party—a bipartisan structure similar to that of the FTC, FDIC and SEC. According to Bachus, Dodd-Frank consolidates too much authority in the hands of a single CFPB director.

The commission structure—an idea first proposed in Congress by former Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID) during the initial stages of the Dodd-Frank debate in 2009—has long been under discussion on Capitol Hill and was ultimately included within the financial reform legislation that first passed the House in December of 2009. (The commission language was ultimately scrapped during the House-Senate conference negotiations.)

Although no Democrats have signed onto H.R. 1121 thus far, House Republicans view the commission proposal as perhaps the most palatable CFPB reform option for Congressional Democrats, who have remained unified in resisting recent GOP efforts to slash the agency’s budget.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), 34 of the committee’s Republicans sent a letter to the six agency heads charged with implementing the Dodd-Frank Act stating that the members are “troubled by the volume and pace of rulemakings” under the Act. Citing the sheer number of rules, the diverse array of issue areas, and the truncated comment periods, the members are concerned that businesses and consumers will not have adequate opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process. The current comment periods are averaging 30-45 days as opposed to the typical 60 day periods that agencies usually allow for significant rules. The rushed time frames also cause the lawmakers to worry that the “consistency of rules across agencies” will be compromised and that the rules will not contain adequate regulatory flexibility for small businesses. The letter poses eight detailed questions to the financial regulators – the Treasury, Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Comptroller of the Currency – and asks for their responses no later than March 25, 2011.

Click here for the full text of the letter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) appears primed to strike the first blow against the Obama administration’s nearly two-year effort to mitigate U.S. home foreclosures through its signature Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). During a markup this morning, Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said a final committee vote will occur next week to terminate the program he argues is doing “more harm than good for struggling homeowners.”

Created in March of 2009, HAMP aims to assist struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by providing federal incentives for borrowers, servicers and investors to modify delinquent home loans through interest rate reductions, mortgage term extensions, and temporary principal forbearance. Although the Obama administration’s initial goal was to permanently modify three to four million home loans, HAMP has led to only 600,000 permanent modifications. According to newly-released Treasury statistics, between April 2009 and the end of January 2011, 1.5 million HAMP trial modifications were initiated – meaning that well over half of all initial modifications have resulted in failure.

Although HAMP was originally provided nearly $30 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as of February, only $1.04 billion in incentive payments have been disbursed to mortgage servicers under HAMP, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Critics of HAMP often cite an October 2010 report from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) asserting that failed loan modifications under the program have led to higher outstanding principal, less home equity, and worse credit score for some participating troubled borrowers. Critics have also noted that no enforcement mechanisms are in place for servicers who violate the HAMP guidelines, largely due to the program’s voluntary nature.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Entitled "The Effect of Dodd-Frank on Small Financial Institutions and Small Businesses,” Wednesday afternoon’s hearing before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit was intended to provide a venue for banking industry leaders to decry the oft-maligned Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and other potential regulatory hurdles stemming from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173).

Interchange fees, however, appeared to be all banking industry leaders wanted to talk about—providing the latest signal that the Congressional debate over the controversial “Durbin Amendment” is far from over.

In 2010, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) and other influential banking industry groups waged a full-scale—albeit unsuccessful—lobbying effort to strip from the Dodd-Frank legislation an amendment offered by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) that would require the Federal Reserve to enact rules to limit the interchange fees paid by retailers and merchants for the acceptance of debit card payments. Although the Durbin amendment attempted to limit the exposure to credit unions and community banks through the inclusion of an exemption for banks with assets of $10 billion or less, witnesses at Tuesday’s hearing say a proposed rule issued by the Fed in December limiting fees from the current 44-cent average to 7-12 cents per transaction would have a “potentially devastating” effect on small financial institutions and consumers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Anecdotally, the Securities and Exchange Commission is receiving one or two "high value" whistleblower tips and complaints a day since the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) statute was signed into law in July 2010. The statute, which enacts sweeping financial regulatory reforms, establishes an expansive whistleblower program. The program provides that a whistleblower, who voluntarily gives “original information” to the SEC that leads to a successful enforcement action with penalties exceeding $1 million, will receive a reward between 10 to 30 percent of the total recovery. To further incentivize whistleblowers, the Act allows for whistleblowers—who can be “any individual,” including corporate insiders, consultants, and service providers—to remain anonymous and cooperate with the SEC through an attorney. The Act also provides robust anti-retaliation protections, which permit federal lawsuits for wrongful termination, suspension, harassment, or other discrimination resulting from the whistleblower’s reporting to the SEC.

In enacting this whistleblower program, Congress sought “to motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.” But, how does this expanded SEC whistleblower program impact corporate compliance programs, many of which were enacted to combat bribery and corruption in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley?

Last November, the SEC proposed regulations to implement Dodd-Frank. Although the proposed rules make clear that they are not intended to discourage corporate whistleblowers from first availing themselves of their company’s compliance program, many companies nonetheless fear that the average employee has little or no incentive to provide his or her employer with an opportunity to investigate, and, if necessary, correct and self-disclose alleged wrongdoing. Doing so, after all, likely would eliminate that employee’s prospects of receiving a significant award.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the political heat of the 2010 Congressional debate over the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173), Republicans in both the House and Senate offered up amendments that would have eliminated the federal government’s $150 billion support of the beleaguered housing giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would have led the two Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) on a speedy path to full privatization.

In 2011, with a new House majority and the Financial Services Committee (HFSC) gavel in hand, the GOP and its previously-offered proposals for reigning in Fannie and Freddie—which collectively guarantee or own an estimated 50 percent of all new U.S. home mortgages—do not appear as simple or clear-cut in practice.

At the heart of the questions raised at this morning’s HFSC hearing over the Obama administration’s newly-released proposals for GSE reform were what the federal government’s long-standing role in the housing finance system should be and how a diminished federal role will affect U.S. homeownership, consumer access to credit, support for low-income communities, and a still-fragile U.S. housing market.

Providing testimony was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who relayed the Obama administration’s hope that Congress can approve legislation within the next two years to dismantle Fannie and Freddie over an extended timeframe and slowly shift the mortgage credit industry closer to the private market. Geithner cautioned against Congress moving too slowly or too quickly, stating that either move could further destabilize the U.S. housing market and potentially disrupt the broader economic recovery.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Resolving a Federal budget impasse that threatens the first government-wide shutdown since 1995 will undoubtedly be Congress’s top priority when it returns on Monday following a week-long President’s Day recess. But who says lawmakers can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? Below is a preview of next week’s critical financial services hearings on Capitol Hill, as both chambers continue to oversee the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and discuss various proposals for reforming the housing finance sector.

GSE Reform

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will make his first appearance of the year before the full House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) on Tuesday to discuss the Obama Administration’s long-awaited report to Congress—unveiled on February 11—that details both short-term administration initiatives and long-term options for reforming Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. House Republicans have targeted GSE reform as a key agenda item for the 112th Congress, as the HFSC has already conducted three separate hearings related to housing finance this Congress.

In addition, HFSC Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) announced yesterday that his committee will be marking up four separate bills that will seek to terminate Obama administration foreclosure and housing assistance programs that Bachus argues are “doing more harm than good for struggling homeowners.” The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, the FHA Refinance Program, and the Emergency Homeowner Relief Program would all be terminated under the GOP proposals.

Republicans have been particularly critical of HAMP, a program spearheaded in March of 2009 by the Obama administration to assist struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by providing federal incentives for borrowers, servicers and investors to modify delinquent home loans. HAMP has led to over 500,000 permanently modified home loans, yet has fallen far short of the Obama administration’s initial goal of 3 to 4 million modifications.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit – chaired by West Virginia Republican Shelley Moore-Capito – will conduct a hearing entitled "The Effect of Dodd-Frank on Small Financial Institutions and Small Businesses.” The CFPB’s potential impact on U.S. job creation and commercial credit access are likely to dominate the discussion.

The hearing follows the House’s passage on February 19 of a Continuing Resolution (CR) – a bill to fund government operations through September 30, 2011—that would cap the Federal Reserve’s funding for the CFPB at $80 million, representing a steep cut from the $134 million the White House requested for the agency’s FY11 start-up costs. Under the Dodd-Frank legislation, once the CFPB is officially established in July 2011, its funding will derive from the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses budget and could be as high as $500 million in FY12.

During the House budget debate, Chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) defended the hefty cuts. "Providing half a billion dollars a year without any congressional oversight to the bureau is, I believe, a very irresponsible abdication of a constitutional check and balance," said Emerson.

Derivatives

Newly-minted Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) will hold a hearing on Thursday to review agency implementation of Dodd-Frank’s provisions related to the regulation of over-the-counter swaps markets.

The hearing will primarily focus on Dodd-Frank’s imposition of enhanced regulatory requirements on the derivative market and its participants, including a requirement for stringent margin and capital requirements for all derivative market participants. During a HFSC oversight hearing on February 15, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler attempted to alleviate lawmaker and industry concerns that the new derivatives regulations will negatively impact so-called commercial “end-users” – those businesses ranging from farm equipment manufacturers to breweries -- who seek to hedge against interest rates and raw material prices through derivatives contracts. Gensler testified that the CFTC, which has been given broad leeway in determining the businesses who will be exempted under the law, does not intend to target legitimate commercial end-users.

Stay tuned for hearing updates next week.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 25, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") adopted amendments to its proxy rules1 to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to the approval by shareholders of executive compensation and "golden parachute" compensation arrangements. Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by adding Section 14A, which requires public companies to conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of executives (the "say-on-pay" vote), as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, and to permit shareholders to weigh in on how often a company should conduct a shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation (the "frequency of say-on-pay" vote). The SEC's new rules related to "say-on-pay" and "frequency of say-on-pay" votes are effective April 4, 2011. Companies that qualified as "smaller reporting companies"2 as of January 21, 2011 and newly public companies that qualify as smaller reporting companies after January 21, 2011 will not be subject to "say-on-pay" and "frequency of say-on-pay" votes until the first meeting of shareholders at which directors will be elected occurring on or after January 21, 2013.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires separate resolutions subject to a shareholder vote to approve executive compensation and to approve the frequency of say-on-pay votes in proxy statements relating to a public company's first annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring on or after January 21, 2011. Any proxy statement that is required to include executive compensation disclosure pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, even if filed prior April 4, 2011, must include the separate resolutions for shareholders to approve executive compensation and the frequency of say-on-pay votes. Public companies will not be required to file proxy materials in preliminary form if the only matters that would require a filing in preliminary form are the say-on-pay vote and frequency of say-on-pay vote.

In addition, the new SEC rules require companies soliciting votes to approve a merger, acquisition, sale of all or substantially all of the assets provide disclosure of certain "golden parachute" compensation arrangements and conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve these golden parachute compensation arrangements. The golden parachute compensation arrangements disclosure and a separate resolution to approve golden parachute compensation arrangements pursuant to new Rule 14a-21(c) are required in merger proxy statements for meetings of shareholders occurring on or after April 25, 2011

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In prepared remarks before the 75th anniversary celebration of the Consumers Union on Tuesday, the Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—Elizabeth Warren— took the opportunity to counter ongoing attacks levied on the new agency from Congressional Republicans who, as Warren says, “are still trying to chip away at its independence.”

Warren’s comments yesterday specifically referenced the escalating efforts by House Republicans’ to strip the CFPB of its independent funding through the Federal Reserve, moves that appear to be the GOP’s most potent tools at increasing Congressional oversight of the CFPB and curbing its wide-ranging regulatory authority over both banks and non-banks.

As signed into law, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) contains provisions intended to insulate the CFPB politically by funding it outside of the Congressionally-approved discretionary spending process. Instead, the CFPB, once fully established on July 21, 2011, will possess a dedicated funding source through a set percentage of the Fed’s operating budget – resulting in an annual budget as high as $450-$500 million, or nearly double the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) budget for Fiscal Year 2010.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DealFlow Media’s 2nd Annual Activist Investor Conference
New York City
January 27, 2011
9:00 a.m.-9:50 a.m.

Keith E. Gottfried, partner in Blank Rome's shareholder activism group, will be speaking on a panel at DealFlow Media’s 2nd Annual Activist Investor Conference on "The Impact of the Dodd-Frank Bill on Corporate Governance" on Thursday, January 27, 2011, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:50 a.m. at the Westin Times Square in New York City.

Mr. Gottfried's panel will discuss the Dodd-Frank legislation—including the changes it has created in the regulatory landscape—and its vast and evolving importance for activists and other investors. The panel will also examine how new rules bring new responsibilities, and liabilities, to management and directorships.

DealFlow Media is the publisher of the Activist Investor Alert and its 2nd Annual Activist Investor Conference, held January 27 and 28, brings together corporate managers, investors, proxy advisors, and legal representatives from all sides for a 360 degree view of activist investment strategies and their impact on corporate performance and returns. The event examines topics vital to both investors and corporate boards, including the following panel presentations:

• A Review of the Objectives and Tactics of Hedge Fund Activists
• Responding to Investor Activism: Running a Successful Proxy Response Campaign
• Valuations & the Cost of Investing: Are Stocks Still Cheap?
• Assessing the Vulnerability of a Board of Directors
• Case Studies: Examining Campaigns against Nabors, Abercrombie & Fitch and Dell
• Proxy Fights in Canada: Activism North of the Border
• Executive Compensation: How Much is Enough?
• The Perils of Being a Lone Dissident Board Member
• Retail Investor Targeting
• Who Wants to Be an Activist Millionaire?
• Closed End Fund Activism
• The Poison Pill: Examining Successful Corporate Defenses Using Good Corporate Governance to Affect Your Strategy

More information about DealFlow Media’s 2nd Annual Activist Investor Conference is available at www.dealflow.com/activist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The results of the 2010 mid-term elections are now in, meaning it’s time to begin analyzing what a new Republican House majority and a more narrowly divided Democratic Senate majority will represent for financial reform efforts in the 112th Congress.

Speaking to reporters this morning, House Minority Leader and likely the next Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), appeared to tone down previous calls by him and fellow GOP colleagues for a repeal of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, instead expressing his caucus’s intention to begin closely scrutinizing the implementation of the sweeping financial reform legislation through aggressive oversight. The GOP is expected to focus its sights on the following—the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); FDIC resolution authority that allows the agency to wind down failing financial institutions; and new rules governing financial derivatives. Republican gains in both the House and Senate will almost assuredly nix President Obama’s ability to usher through the Senate a potential nomination of Elizabeth Warren as a permanent director of the CFPB.

Despite the GOP’s renewed focus on overseeing and potentially repealing certain provisions of Dodd-Frank, a Democratic-controlled White House and Senate will still significantly hamper Republicans’ ability to pass any broad or sweeping changes. The most viable tool at Republicans’ disposal will be the power of the purse, as attempts could be made to prevent Dodd-Frank’s implementation through the withholding of federal appropriations to certain agencies. However, from a political standpoint, it remains to be seen whether the new House majority will risk being viewed by the electorate as proponents of Wall Street deregulation when looking ahead to 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Perhaps no section of the sweeping Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is more controversial on both Capitol Hill and within the financial industry than that which creates an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—and according to the outgoing Senate Banking Committee Chairman, until the President nominates and the Senate confirms a permanent CFPB director, the entire bureau may be at risk in the next Congress.

“Look, this was a controversial section of the bill—don’t have any illusions,” said Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) in reference to the CFPB during a Banking Committee hearing yesterday that received testimony from the heads of the various financial regulatory agencies. “Regardless of the outcome of the election in November, there are going to be people trying to get rid of this bureau, and it’s going to be a lot easier to get rid of it if it hasn’t gotten up and gotten started demonstrating the value and importance of it. So it’s at risk in my view, until we get someone in running the place and demonstrating what it can do and the kind of rules it’s going to develop.”

President Obama’s decision on September 16 to temporarily appoint Elizabeth Warren as "special adviser" to the President and the Treasury Secretary for standing up the CFPB has failed to appease Chairman Dodd, who has repeated such ominous warnings to the administration over the past few months. When taking the newly emboldened GOP and their recent rhetoric into account, Dodd’s sentiments don’t appear to be overstated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has identified 30 areas in the Dodd-Frank Act where the CFTC will conduct rulemakings. In an effort to accommodate public input prior to the formal rulemakings, the CFTC has set up electronic mailboxes for 29 of the 30 areas. The only one without a mailbox is the Retail Off-Exchange Foreign Currency area because the public comment period for that proposed rulemaking has already closed. The other areas and their related email addresses are listed in the attached notice and fall into the following broad categories: Definitions and Standards; Clearing; Trading; Data; Particular Products (e.g. swaps and security-based swaps); Enforcement; Position Limits; and Other Titles and General Comments.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on July 21, 2010, the agencies charged with implementing the Act have begun laying the groundwork for managing their new responsibilities.

The Department of Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Michael Barr provided a window into the action during his remarks to the Chicago Club yesterday. The first meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) – the council of financial regulators charged with managing systemic risk – will be in September. The Treasury is currently working to stand up the new Office of Financial Research that will support the FSOC by collecting and analyzing data pertaining to systemic risk. Internationally, Treasury is working to raise capital requirements – the ratios and the quality of the underlying capital – and also institute explicit, quantitative liquidity requirements. According to Barr, the Dodd-Frank reforms also require that, “Regulators must supplement existing approaches to supervision with mandatory ‘stress tests,’ credit exposure reporting, and ‘living wills,’ so that they can adequately assess the potential impact of the activities and risk exposures of these firms on each other, on critical markets, and on the broader financial system.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”). The Act provides the most sweeping overhaul of the regulation of the U.S. financial services industry and financial markets since the aftermath of the Great Depression. The Act represents Congress’ attempt to address the myriad of issues arising out of the financial crisis and marks the conclusion of over a year’s effort to craft a legislative solution designed to avoid another financial crisis. The legislation requires an overhaul of the regulatory landscape and establishes a new regulatory scheme to govern certain public companies, banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, as well as other companies in the financial services industry.

The new legislation is designed to address systemic risk in the U. S. financial system and remediate the “too big to fail” issues which required government bailouts of several large financial services companies during the financial crisis. The legislation also implements new corporate governance and disclosure requirements applicable to public companies, increases the regulatory requirements applicable to banks, insurance companies and hedge funds and subjects certain large financial services companies to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB”).

The new legislation adds several new corporate governance and disclosure requirements applicable to companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges and in some instances, other publicly-traded companies, including:

• a requirement for having a non-binding shareholder vote on compensation of specified executive officers and in certain instances golden parachute provisions;
• a requirement for more stringent rules and disclosure applicable to compensation committees;
• a requirements for additional disclosure requirements related to executive compensation;
• the elimination of discretionary voting by brokers in connection with the election of directors, executive compensation issues or other significant matters;
• authorization for the SEC to adopt rules related to proxy access; and
• a requirement to adopt clawback policies with respect to employment arrangements of executives of companies seeking to list on a U.S. stock exchange.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By a vote of 237-192, the U.S. House of Representatives tonight passed the conference report for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The Senate must also approve the legislation before it can go to the president for his signature. The Senate is expected to take up the measure when it returns from the Independence Day recess the week of July 12th.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the clock ticking on a self-imposed deadline for the completion of House and Senate conference negotiations, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) did his best impersonation of (soccer star) Landon Donovan early Friday morning, clearing a conference report that will bring Congress one step closer to passing the most sweeping financial regulatory reform legislation in nearly a century. 

Capping off two weeks of publicly-televised conference committee negotiations that included a nearly 24-hour marathon session on the final day, House conferees voted 20-11 and Senators voted 7-5 to approve the measure on party lines; and provided President Obama with a critical victory prior to this weekend’s G-20 Summit in Toronto.

Below are the key issues that were resolved in conference committee on Thursday:

Derivatives
A broad array of industries, both inside and outside the financial sector, anxiously awaited the conferees’ response to controversial Senate language authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) that would require banks to spin-off or “wall off” their swaps operations. After many weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations -- including a contentious session yesterday in which House Democrats threatened to pull their support for the overall bill if the Lincoln language was included -- conferees ultimately agreed to a watered-down version that allows banks to continue trading with certain derivatives that are deemed less risky. Under the proposal offered by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-MN), derivatives tied to interest rate swaps, foreign exchange swaps, gold and silver, and investment-grade credit default swaps will be exempted from the prohibition, while derivative trading related to agriculture, commodities, energy, equities, metals, and below-investment-grade credit default swaps must be walled off from a bank’s federally insured deposits.

Volcker Rule
Aside from the derivatives title, the debate surrounding the “Volcker Rule” -- or the proposed ban on proprietary trading for banks and bank holding companies -- proved to be the most contentious item on the conferees’ agenda in the final week. In the end, negotiators agreed to strengthen the Volcker Rule provisions by incorporating language offered by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) that would strip the ability of regulators to halt the Volcker Rule‘s implementation. However, in deference to the wishes of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)—who was one of only four Republicans to vote for the financial reform bill in the Senate— the final language would allow banks to engage in proprietary trading activities with up to three percent of their tangible common equity.

Banking Capital Standards
Another major agreement involved language authored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that would limit the ability of banks to use commonly held securities known as “trust-preferred” to meet capital requirements. Although House Democrats sought a 10-year phase-in for financial institutions with assets between $15 billion and $100 billion, negotiators agreed to a five-year phase-in period for $15-$100 billion institutions and a full exemption for those with less than $15 billion.

Corporate Governance
Conferees decided to retain a Senate provision that requires publicly-trade companies to grant certain shareholders -- those owning five percent of the outstanding shares for at least two years -- to nominate and elect members of the board of directors through a proxy vote.

Levy on Banks and Hedge Funds
In order to defray the legislation’s projected $22 billion cost -- as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office -- conferees approved last-minute language that would allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to levy fees on financial institutions with assets of $50 billion or more and hedge funds with managed assets of over $10 billion.

The House and Senate are expected to vote on the final conference report next week -- which is not subject to further amendment -- before sending it on to the White House for President Obama's signature and enactment into law .
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After gaveling in day six of financial reform conference negotiations, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) reaffirmed this afternoon his goal of completing conference negotiations by June 24, stating that conferees will “stay [on Thursday] until we’re finished.”

Despite a handful of controversial issues that await consideration this week—including the scope of the so-called “Volcker Rule,” heightened banking capital standards and more stringent regulations for financial derivatives—both Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) appear increasingly determined to wrap up conference negotiations before President Obama travels to Toronto for this weekend’s G-20 Summit. According to Frank, any potential delays would undercut the president’s leverage at the G-20 and cause further uncertainty for global financial markets. If Frank and Dodd meet their timeline it will likely set up House and Senate floor consideration of a conference report next week.

Consumer advocates secured a significant victory on Tuesday, as conferees came to a general agreement regarding the size and scope of a newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which will be housed in the Federal Reserve and will be funded independently. An agreement also appears imminent regarding an exemption from CFPB regulation for auto dealers. Although House conferees are seeking a blanket exemption, Chairman Dodd has offered to allow the CFPB to issue rules that apply to auto dealers under the Truth in Lending Act, while the Federal Reserve would have discretion as to whether or not it enforces such rules.

Today, conferees are examining prudential banking regulation under Title 6 of the bill—which includes the Volcker Rule. Conferees are expected to consider an amendment offered by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) that would explicitly prohibit banks and bank holding companies from engaging in proprietary trading activities, as opposed to the current Senate language that provides latitude to regulators over the Volcker Rule’s implementation. In addition, Senator Scott Brown (R-MA)—who was one of only four Republicans to vote for the financial reform bill in the Senate—is lobbying conferees to include an exemption from the Volcker Rule for non-bank mutual funds and insurance companies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With several issues leftover from last week and several more controversial ones on the agenda this week—such as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and derivatives—it may be a challenge for the congressional conferees to finish their work by the Fourth of July. In addition to sorting out the policy issues, Congress also has to get through certain procedural hoops before the financial regulatory reform proposals become law.

July 4th is the quoted deadline, but the real deadline for Congress to finish its business on this legislation is more likely to be Thursday, July 1, or Friday, July 2, because most members will be anxious to get back to their states and districts for Independence Day events. Between now and then, several things must happen. Assuming the conferees come to a conclusion and the majority agrees to a final package, the conference committee must produce two documents:

1. A conference report, which the majority of conferees must sign; and
2. A joint explanatory statement, which explains what the conference report does.

The House will then act first and take up the conference report. The House Rules Committee will have to meet to agree to a rule for the report’s floor consideration. House rules require that conference reports must layover 72 hours, however, the Rules Committee may vote to waive that rule. If not, that could add three extra days to the process.

Once the conference report goes to the House floor, the members can vote to adopt, reject, or recommit it (to the conference committee). Assuming the House adopts the conference report, it would then go to the Senate where it is subject to debate and possibly a filibuster. Even if Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and end the filibuster, there is a two day process for cloture plus 30 hours of post-cloture debate.

What this means is that process issues alone could take up a week’s worth of congressional time. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) are seasoned legislators who have likely factored these procedural constraints into their strategy. Financial Reform Watch predicts the Chairmen will push hard to finish the conference committee work by the end of this week or weekend, leaving next week to get through the procedural hurdles. If they are unsuccessful in bringing the conference’s work to a close by next Monday, the July 4th deadline may be in real jeopardy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the 43 House and Senate conferees today begin debating reforms related to insurance, credit rating agencies, the thrift charter, and private funds within the financial regulatory reform bill, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) announced further details of the conference committee agenda over the next couple of weeks.

Most notably, the two most contentious items of financial reform—the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection regulator and the enhanced oversight of derivatives—will be dealt with next week according to the schedule. The somewhat divisive resolution authority provisions (aimed at preventing “too-big-to-fail”) will be considered this Thursday. Below is the tentative schedule:

Week 1 (The week of June 14)

Wednesday, June 16

• Title 9, subtitles A, B, F, H, I and J of base text: Investor protection/regulatory improvements
• Title 9, subtitles E and G of base text: Executive compensation/corporate governance
• Title 11 of base text: Fed audit and governance, and emergency liquidity provisions

 Thursday, June 17

• Titles 1, 2 and 8: Systemic risk regulation, resolution authority, payments/clearing/settlement

Week 2 (The week of June 21)

• Consumer Protection Agency, CFPA/CFPB
• Predatory lending
• Interchange
• Remittances
• Access issues
• Prudential regulation
• Derivatives; miscellaneous

DOWNLOAD: HR 4173 - Conference Base Text (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Aiming to deliver a financial regulatory reform bill to President Obama’s desk before the July 4th recess, this morning Senate Democratic leadership unveiled its list of members charged with reconciling the competing House and Senate versions of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

The Senate's lineup of conferees includes seven Democrats and five Republicans, eight of which are members of the Banking Committee and four from the Agriculture Committee:

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee

• Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
• Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL)
• Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD)
• Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
• Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
• Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Agriculture Committee

• Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
• Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Without any votes to spare, the Senate this afternoon approved, by a tally of 60-40, a motion to limit debate on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217), effectively bringing the Senate’s debate over financial reform to its final stages. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says he is now aiming to complete the bill tonight following the consideration of a handful of remaining amendments.

After falling just short of garnering the necessary 60 votes to invoke cloture during yesterday’s session, Senate Democrats were able to pick-up the support of  Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)—who joined GOP colleagues Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine as the only Republicans to support cloture—along with Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who was absent during Wednesday’s session. For the second day in a row, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted in opposition. Brown appears to have switched his vote after receiving assurances from Democratic leadership that the bill’s proprietary trading ban would be modified in order to shield the insurance industry.

As a result of the successful cloture motion, only amendments deemed “germane” to the legislation will be eligible for consideration, ultimately nixing the possibility for consideration of most of the pending amendments. Amendments likely for consideration are a proposal offered by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) to exempt automobile dealers from the regulatory purview of a newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and an amendment from Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Carl Levin (D-MI) that would explicitly prohibit banks and bank holding companies from engaging in proprietary trading activities.

With the votes secured, we expect Democratic leadership to wrap things up either tonight or tomorrow morning.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Falling short of the necessary 60 votes to cut off debate on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217), a motion to invoke cloture failed in the Senate this afternoon by a vote of 57-42.

Although Maine’s Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins decided to break rank with their GOP colleagues by supporting cloture, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was unable to keep his caucus in line, ultimately losing the votes of both Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI). In a parliamentary maneuver, Reid switched his vote in order to reconsider the cloture motion at a time that has yet to be determined.

Both Reid and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) must now return to the negotiating table in order to establish a timeline for the consideration of additional amendments. Until then, the magic number of 60 remains elusive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has teed up a critical vote today at 2 p.m. on the motion to invoke cloture, or limit debate, on the financial regulatory reform legislation, representing the first major step in wrapping up nearly a month of Senate debate.

If cloture is invoked—and Reid says he has commitments from Republican senators in order to garner the necessary 60 votes, despite the cries of a handful of Democrats who are seeking additional floor time for the consideration of their amendments—the Senate will likely vote on final passage of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217) on Friday.

Although the filing deadline for amendments has passed, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) continue to negotiate a resolution to the remaining amendments that have been offered by senators on both sides of the aisle. Reportedly, Dodd has now approved roughly 40 amendments that will be incorporated into a single manager’s amendment that will be offered this week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After wrapping up another eventful voting week that involved the consideration of nearly 15 amendments to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217), the Senate – and perhaps the Congress – now appears headed towards the finish line on financial regulatory reform.

Despite the numerous votes, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s (D-CT) overhaul legislation escaped relatively unscathed from problematic amendments that could have disrupted future conference negotiations with the House, as a flurry of proposals – including those related to credit rating agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, community banks, oversight of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, underwriting standards, the newly-created consumer financial protection bureau (CFPB) and interchange fees – all were brought up for consideration (see below for additional details on amendments). When the chamber returns to action next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is expected to set up a vote that will occur on Wednesday to invoke cloture – or limit further debate to 30 hours – which if approved, would likely lead to the bill’s final passage later in the week. Some sources around Capitol Hill are even predicting that after the Senate completes its work, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and fellow Democrats will push for House passage of the Senate bill, precluding the need for a formal conference and ultimately shortening the timeline for the President’s signature.

But predictions aside, Dodd must still contend with the burgeoning frustration of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, who expressed dismay this week that only 31 amendments out of the over 300 introduced have been formally debated on the floor thus far. In addition, particular contention still lingers with respect to the legislation’s provisions regulating derivatives transactions, specifically the scope of the bill’s "commercial end-user" exemption and its prohibition on commercial banks and bank holding companies from directly engaging in derivatives transactions. The Senate rejected, 39-59, a Republican derivatives proposal offered by Senators Saxby Chambliss (GA), Richard Shelby (AL), Judd Gregg (NH) that sought to limit the types of swaps transactions that would face clearing requirements by exempting “bona-fide hedging swap transactions.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following a nearly three-day logjam, the Senate is now voting , and voting often, as leaders on both sides continue to queue up a broad array of amendments dealing with nearly every component of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S. 3217).

Yesterday, the Senate jumpstarted the amendment process by passing overwhelmingly two proposals aimed at ending “Too Big To Fail” through modifications to the bill’s resolution authority language. The first amendment, offered by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), attaches language specifying that “no taxpayer funds shall be used to prevent the liquidation of any financial company”; and the second amendment, offered by Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), removes the controversial $50 billion fund that would have been used to finance the resolution of failing financial institutions and would limit the payments received by creditors during liquidation. The Boxer amendment passed by a vote of 96-1 and the Dodd-Shelby amendment was approved 93-5.

Although both parties were able to resolve the “Too Big Too Fail” dilemma relatively peacefully through closed door negotiations, the gulf between Democrats and Republicans over a contentious proposal to create a new consumer financial protection bureau (CFPB) may prove to be more difficult. At some point today, the Senate is expected to consider an alternative GOP proposal offered by Shelby and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that would, as opposed to the current Dodd proposal that places the CFPB within the Federal Reserve, put the new bureau inside the FDIC and grant its board with significant oversight authority over the bureau's rulemaking decisions. The Shelby-McConnell proposal would also limit the bureau’s authority to that of rulemaking, as banking regulators would retain their enforcement and supervisory authority. But nonetheless, the GOP alternative’s prospects of passage are dismal by most accounts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fresh off a newly-brokered compromise between Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL), Senate leaders announced this evening that both sides have unanimously agreed to begin debating the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217) – officially putting an end to nearly three days of legislative stalemate.

Although details of the Dodd-Shelby compromise language – which reportedly only changes provisions related to eliminating taxpayer bailouts of large and interconnected financial institutions -- have yet to be unveiled, a senior GOP aide said it amounted to “huge concessions” by the Democrats, and ultimately led to the Republicans' final decision to move debate on the broader legislation forward. The Senate made progress tonight in spite of the fact that two other major areas of contention -- derivative regulation and the powers of a newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) -- remain unresolved.

Beginning on Thursday, the amendment process will kickoff with the consideration of a Dodd-Lincoln substitute amendment.  Particular attention will be paid to the derivative language, especially whether or not a broader exemption should be provided for "end-users " and also whether or not banks will be forced to spin-off or “wall off” their swaps operations -- a proposal that is currently opposed by Republicans, the Federal Reserve, a few Democrats (including New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Virginia's Mark Warner), and even some in the Obama Treasury Department.

Both Republicans and Democrats are expected to introduce a laundry list of amendments in what Senate Democratic leadership pledges will be an open process.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tonight the Senate Democratic leadership was unable to get the 60 votes necessary to advance comprehensive financial regulatory reform legislation (S. 3217). The motion to proceed to the bill failed by a vote of 57-41. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) was the lone Democrat to vote with the united Republicans. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking Minority Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) continue to work behind the scenes toward a compromise package that could attract more than 60 votes. At the same time, Senate Republicans are rumored to be drafting a Republican alternative to the Banking Committee-passed bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) can move to reconsider tonight's vote -- i.e. a do-over -- at any time, but he is not likely to do that until he has secured at least 60 votes.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Senate Agriculture Committee, led by Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), completed its work on the over-the-counter derivatives section of financial regulatory reform. By a vote of 13 to 8, the committee adopted the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) was the only Republican to join the committee Democrats in voting for the bill.

The Senate is set to vote to end the filibuster on the Senate Banking Committee bill next Monday evening, which would allow Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) to bring the legislation to the floor next Tuesday, April 27. The Monday night vote is dependent on getting at least one Republican to break ranks and vote for cloture, which would end the delay. No one knows which Republican will cave, but some likely candidates are the moderate Senators from the Northeast: Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), or Scott Brown (R-MA).

We expect Sen. Dodd to incorporate Lincoln’s Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act into the financial reform package he brings to the floor. Following are a few shorthand highlights of the Lincoln bill, but click here for the Senate Agriculture Committee’s more extensive summary and the most up to date bill language.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following financial regulatory reform's path in the Senate may require a scorecard. This coming Monday, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) plans to file his committee's report on the legislation it adopted before the spring recess. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the Senate will begin floor debate on the bill starting next week. Meanwhile, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) today unveiled her much anticipated derivatives bill, which her committee will markup next week. Reportedly, the current Lincoln bill does not reflect the negotiations she has been having with her Republican counterparts, and the legislation is likely to change significantly during next week's markup. Of course, the Agriculture Committee markup could end up like the Banking Committee markup with no amendments and a party line vote. It is too early to predict, but President Obama's threat today -- that he would "veto legislation that does not bring the derivatives market under control" -- signals that the White House is not looking to compromise.

Earlier today, it looked like Democrats would have been able to entice at least one Republican to help them break a possible filibuster next week. By this afternoon though, all 41 Republican Senators sent a unified letter to Reid opposing the Banking Committee bill and asking for support for the bipartisan negotiations several Senators have continued conducting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This afternoon at 5 p.m. the Senate Banking Committee will meet and likely adopt along party lines Chairman Chris Dodd's "Manager's Amendment" to his financial regulatory reform draft unveiled earlier this month. Instead of dedicating a week or more to consideration of the 473 amendments filed by committee members -- 98 of which were filed by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) -- Dodd decided to incorporate a fraction of the amendments into one roughly 100-page package and then move the bill swiftly and successfully out of committee.

Corker said this morning that he was disappointed about the process, since he had hoped to work through many of the issues in a bipartisan fashion within the Banking Committee.  Assuming things go as predicted tonight, many compromises to the bill will be worked out behind the scenes prior to floor consideration, while still other issues will play out on the Senate floor.

Corker still believes the bill has a 90 percent chance of passing ultimately and thinks that there may be a "better opportunity with a different cast of characters -- the full Senate -- to do something policywise."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) continue to work towards bipartisan agreement on at least some key elements of a financial reform measure. While the process has been a rocky one, both Senators appear to be working hard to find common ground. They appear to have found agreement on at least two things:

1. There will NOT be a stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  Rather, consumer protections functions will be folded into another agency or agencies.

2. The president's proposal to limit the size of financial institutions (the "Volcker rule") has complicated the process and may have come too late in the game.

Our contacts on the Hill are telling us to expect committee action on a financial reform package by the end of the month. Regardless of the final outcome of the Dodd-Shelby discussions, the Chairman appears committed to moving ahead.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner notified Congress today that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) would be extended until October 3, 2010 – a move that, although expected, adds fuel to an ongoing debate on Capitol Hill whether to wind down the politically unpopular program or utilize its excess funds for broader economic recovery efforts.

In a letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Geithner sought to quell political concerns by outlining a TARP “exit strategy” and narrowing the program’s focus to three specific areas in 2010: home foreclosure mitigation; small-business lending; and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) in order to facilitate lending through securitization markets.  According to Geithner, no TARP funds will be spent beyond these specific areas “unless necessary to respond to an immediate and substantial threat to the economy.”  In addition, the Capital Purchase Program – aimed at boosting bank lending through nearly $250 billion in direct capital injections – will cease.

Key to the administration’s TARP extension is the assumption that only $550 billion of the $700 billion program will be necessary for deployment, a figure buoyed by Treasury estimates that TARP-recipient banks could repay as much as $175 billion by the end of 2010.  Sanguine figures such as these have opened the floodgates to recent congressional proposals that would use TARP proceeds to create or expand economic recovery initiatives -- including a job-creation proposal outlined yesterday by President Obama – and, at the same time, remain budget-neutral.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Full Text of Bill (PDF)
• Summary of Bill (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Heading into the House Financial Services Committee's markup of the CFPA bill last week, a handful of moderate, pro-business Democrats—including Reps. Melissa Bean (IL) and Jim Himes (CT)—banded together with the intention of significantly watering down bill language that scraps long-standing federal preemption laws related to consumer protection. However, merely a week later, and in the midst of suggestions from Democratic colleagues that a reinstitution of federal preemption laws would hamper the rulemaking ability of the states and ultimately poison the overarching bill, Bean and her allies were only able to muster a few drops as the committee approved legislation this morning by a vote of 39-29.

Instead, by voice vote, the committee agreed yesterday to an amendment to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (H.R. 3126) that allows the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or the Office of Thrift Supervision to intervene and preempt state laws on a limited basis, only in cases where state law discriminates against nationally chartered institutions or “significantly interferes with” national banks’ ability to engage in banking. Offered by Reps. Mel Watt (D-NC) and Dennis Moore (D-KS), the amendment still leaves in place bill language that severely limits the exemptions from state laws that nationally chartered thrifts, banks, and their operating subsidiaries have enjoyed since 2004. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Even Cabinet Members (maybe ESPECIALLY Cabinet Members) need an August break. Various media outlets have reported that Treasury Secretary Geithner delivered an expletive-laced tirade to the principal U.S. financial regulators during a meeting last Friday, in what sources say was a clear show of frustration over the internal opposition to some key elements of the Obama administration's financial regulatory proposal.

Fortunately, for inquisitive lawmakers, several of the meeting attendees were on Capitol Hill today to testify before the Senate Banking Committee on “Strengthening and Streamlining Prudential Bank Supervision,” including Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Sheila Bair, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo, Acting Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) John Bowman and Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan.

Confirming the veracity of the reports, the regulators were also unwilling to soften their criticism, as Bair and her fellow regulators expressed sharp resistance to the administration's proposal to consolidate the bank supervisory functions of the OTS and the OCC into a new National Banking Supervisor -- citing concerns that unified regulation would undercut the interests of community banks and would do little to close the most glaring regulatory gaps that occurred in the non-bank, or "shadow," banking system.

After hearing from the witnesses, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) openly speculated about the administration's plan, commenting that it is “…a thoughtful proposal but I wonder if it is the right prescription.”  Then again, Dodd’s comments may offer more insight on where his mind has focused these past several weeks than about the financial reform outlook.

The House adjourned last Friday and the Senate will adjourn this Friday for the August recess. Dodd is going home to face some challenging poll numbers as he gears up his 2010 re-election campaign. The opinion landscape is shifting rapidly, and legislators may come back in September with some different notions than they left with in August. One thing is for certain, it is going to be a very busy fall.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Your Financial Reform Watch team has reported before on key legislators' misgivings with the administration's plan to make the Fed the systemic risk regulator for so-called "Tier 1" financial holding companies. Those misgivings are holding sway now on Capitol Hill and are beginning to take hold in the administration itself.

Just yesterday, SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair were the latest to endorse what Shapiro referred to as a “hybrid approach,” one that would significantly strengthen the president’s current proposal of creating a Financial Services Oversight Council, responsible for collecting data and identifying emerging financial market risks for the Fed. Instead, both Shapiro and Bair envision a council of regulators that would work in concert with the central bank. Additionally, Bair recommended that, in order to ensure independence, the chairman of the council should be a presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation.

On the Senate side, Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) are both giving voice to concerns about the enhanced role for the Fed. Shelby has been an outspoken critic of giving the Fed such authority from the start, but Dodd’s statements at a committee hearing yesterday that the “new authority could compromise the independence of the Fed when it provides monetary policy,” and that he “expect[s] changes to be made to this proposal," made it clear the Senate is heading in a direction different from the administration's.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late yesterday afternoon, the Treasury Department released draft legislation that would require advisers to hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, and other private pools of capital to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they have more than $30 million of assets under management. In addition to registering, the advisers will be subjected to new reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, and disclosure requirements as well as conflict of interest and anti-fraud prohibitions. In its release, Treasury said,

"The Administration's legislation would help protect investors from fraud and abuse, provide increased transparency, and provide the information necessary to assess whether risks in the aggregate or risks in any particular fund pose a threat to our overall financial stability."

Financial Reform Watch will be tracking this legislation as it moves through Congress.

Treasury:  Proposed Legislatve Language for the Registration of Hedge Funds (PDF) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Demonstrating that Congress intends to put its own stamp on financial reform legislation, House Democrats on July 8 introduced their own scaled-back version of the new consumer protection agency proposed by President Obama. Coming on the heels of the president’s release of draft legislation to create a new independent regulator for financial products and services, House Democrats responded quickly on Wednesday by unveiling the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (HR 3126).

The bill was introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). While it retains many of the key provisions outlined within the White House bill—including the transfer of consumer financial regulations to the CFPA in order for the new agency to write and enforce rules on financial products of both banks and non-banks—it is notable for several significant differences from the Obama proposal that may limit the CFPA’s jurisdiction.

In particular, the House bill preserves the current regulatory enforcement structure for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which is overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) in order to ensure that depository institutions are engaging in fair lending practices to low-income communities. Additionally, unlike the President’s bill, which assumes a merger with OTS and OCC to form a new prudential regulator titled the National Bank Supervisory (NBS), H.R. 3126 makes no mention of NBS. Frank’s press release goes on to state that the details of the President’s merger proposal will be considered “at [a] later date.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Treasury Department today released draft legislation outlining a central pillar of the Obama administration’s financial regulatory overhaul: the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), an independent regulator with broad authority over “any financial product or service” used by consumers. Seeking to clarify the administration’s June 17th white paper on financial regulatory reform, the legislation provides lawmakers and industry leaders with the statutory details regarding the proposed CFPA.

According to the draft language, in order to continuously monitor consumer risks, the agency—composed of a five-member board led by a presidentially-appointed director subject to Senate confirmation—would collect information related to loans, products, and services from both banks and non-banks. Additionally, consumer financial regulations that are currently divided among several agencies—the Federal Reserve, FDIC, Office of Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Trade Commission, and National Credit Union Administration—will be consolidated within the CFPA. The legislation would have these regulators transfer functions, rules, and employees to the new CFPA within six to eighteen months following enactment. The agency must research, analyze, and report on consumer awareness and understanding of financial products, related disclosure statements, related risks and benefits, and consumer behavior related to such products. The agency would also collect and track consumer complaints and create a new, integrated disclosure form for mortgage transactions, unless the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Fed can achieve the same goal prior to the transfer of such responsibilities to the CFPA. There are also provisions related to civil penalties and enforcement authority.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

President Obama today released the long-awaited proposal for reform of the regulatory structure overseeing the financial services industry. It is a sweeping proposal with broad implications for the entire industry. It reshuffles regulatory powers, combines some agencies, creates a new one and extends federal regulatory powers to products and firms which are currently not federally regulated or regulated at all. Congress, the industry,the media and other stakeholders are poring over the 85-page "white paper" describing the proposal. Click here to go to the document.
 

Brief Summary

1.      Avoid Future Systemic Risk/Promote Robust Supervision and Regulation – Raise capital and liquidity requirements for banks and systemically significant financial firms; establish a Financial Services Oversight Council of regulators to coordinate and prevent systemic risk; establish a new National Bank Supervisor in Treasury to oversee federally chartered banks; bring hedge funds and other private pools of capital into the regulatory framework; require public companies to hold non-binding say-on-pay shareholder votes and have independent compensation committees; review accounting standards; establish the Office of National Insurance within Treasury to enhance oversight of the sector.

2.      Reform the Structure of the Financial System – impose “robust” reporting requirements on issuers of asset-backed securities; reduce reliance on credit rating agencies; require the originator, sponsor or broker of a securitization to retain a financial interest in its performance; harmonize the regulation of futures and securities; safeguard payment and settlement systems; subject all derivatives trading to regulation; strengthen oversight of systemically important payment, clearing and settlements systems.

3.      Protect Consumers and Investors – improve the SEC’s ability to protect investors and establish a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to identify gaps in supervision and enforcement; ensure the enforcement of consumer protection regulations; improve state coordination; and promote consistent regulation of similar products.

4.      Enable the Government to Manage Financial Crises -- establish a resolution mechanism, similar to the FDIC’s,  for non-bank financial firms and subject those whose failure could harm the financial system (Tier I Financial Holding Companies) to Fed supervision; require the Fed to get Treasury sign off when the Fed invokes its emergency lending authority for “unusual and exigent circumstances.”

5.      Improve International Supervision and Coordination – improve oversight of global financial markets; strengthen the capital framework; coordinate supervision of international firms; enhance crisis management tools.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

President Obama is today releasing his plan for a new regulatory structure to mitigate risk in the financial marketplace. Please click here to see the proposal from the Administration. Financial Reform Watch will be posting analysis shortly.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tired of being labeled as obstructionists, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday issued their plan for financial regulatory reform. Led by the committee’s Ranking Minority Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and TARP Congressional Oversight Committee member Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the Republican solutions stem from three principles – prevent any future Wall Street bailouts; stop the government from picking winners and losers in the financial system; and restore market discipline.

While the Republican plan does not address every issue -- most notably missing is insurance regulation – those included represent a consensus view within their caucus. Bachus described their plan as a “line in the sand” from which Republicans can negotiate with the Democrats. Hensarling, who before coming to Congress served on the executive compensation committee of a company publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, was particularly critical of the latest push to regulate compensation. A better approach, Hensarling believes, is the creation of a new “Market Stability and Capital Adequacy Board,” which would be charged with flagging risky practices across the board. The Republicans offered as an example the practice of rewarding loan originators for loan volume with no regard to loan quality, saying that such a board would have been able to halt that.

The White House plans to release its comprehensive reform plan on June 17th. Will the Obama administration give a nod to bipartisanship by including a few elements of the Republican plan? Financial Reform Watch will compare and contrast the plans later this week.

Central Elements of the Republican Plan

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ever since the AIG bonus brouhaha, TARP recipients knew the day would come when federal officials would step in to manage their compensation structure. Several have been scrambling to raise the private capital necessary to repay their TARP loans just to avoid the anticipated executive compensation restrictions. There are reports today that Treasury Secretary Geithner may announce new guidelines as early as this week. However, he is not currently scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on this topic until the House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 18th. Whenever he makes his announcement, we expect he will explain that the new executive compensation rules will apply to some TARP recipients permanently – those that accepted more than one round of bailout money -- regardless of whether or not they have paid back the federal funds. In addition, it is also reported that Treasury will be suggesting "guidelines" to be used for executive compensation in financial services firms that have not receive TARP assistance.

It appears the restrictions will be imposed on a company’s 25 highest earners. Reportedly, federal bank regulators will also be granted new authority to impose compensation restrictions on banks not in the TARP program whose pay systems encourage too much risk. How much risk is too much and who determines that remain important questions.

The expected move to extend the pay restrictions beyond the life of the TARP involvement in the firms raises some important questions. Are restrictions that outlive TARP money in the firms consistent with the agreements the institutions made originally with the government? Will there be any sunset whatsoever on the proposed restrictions? Where GM is concerned, will the company emerging from bankruptcy be considered a "new" company?

To the extent the new guidelines would reach into companies who have not received TARP funds, it is legitimate to ask the question as to whether these are a legitimate shareholder's rights issues or an overreach by federal regulators into areas best left to the executive suite and the boardroon.

Since there are very few facts available and only rumors, Financial Reform Watch will reserve judgment until the Treasury releases the new rules, however, there is much to ponder in the meantime.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The European Commission yesterday put forward its framework proposal on Financial Supervision in Europe. The proposal covers a set of far-reaching reforms to the current architecture of supervisory committees, with the creation of a new European Systemic Risk Council (ESRC) and European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS), composed of new European Supervisory Authorities. Legislation to embody these proposals will follow in the autumn and will thus be finalized under the leadership of new Commissioners who will be appointed during the summer.

With this initiative, the Commission is responding to the weaknesses identified during the financial crisis as well as to the G20 call to take action to build a stronger, more globally consistent, regulatory and supervisory system for financial services. The proposed financial supervision package involves two key elements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The EC Commission on Wednesday proposed new binding legislation on “Alternative Investment Fund Managers” (AIFM), which includes the managers of hedge funds and private equity funds. This is, according to the Commission, the first attempt in any jurisdiction to create a comprehensive framework for the direct regulation and supervision in the alternative fund industry. The proposal now passes to the European Parliament and Council for consideration.

 The proposed AIFM Directive would:

• Adopt an 'all encompassing' approach so as to ensure that no significant AIFM escapes effective regulation and oversight. The Directive will only apply to those AIFM managing a portfolio of more than 100 million euros. A higher threshold of 500 million euros applies to AIFM not using leverage (and having a five year lock-in period for their investors) as they are not regarded as posing systemic risks. A threshold of 100 million euros implies that roughly 30 percent of hedge fund managers, managing almost 90 percent of EU-domiciled hedge fund assets, would be covered by the Directive.
• Regulate all major sources of risks in the alternative investment value chain by ensuring that AIFM are authorized and subject to ongoing regulation and that key service providers, including depositaries and administrators, are subject to robust regulatory standards.
• Enhance the transparency of AIFM and the funds they manage for supervisors, investors, and other key stakeholders.
• Ensure that all regulated entities are subject to appropriate governance standards and have robust systems in place for the management of risks, liquidity, and conflicts of interest.
• Permit AIFM to market funds to professional investors throughout the EU subject to compliance with demanding regulatory standards.
• Grant access to the European market to third country funds after a transitional period of three years. This should allow the EU to determine whether the necessary guarantees are in place in the countries where the funds are domiciled (e.g. the equivalence of regulatory and supervisory standards and the exchange of information on tax matters).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The United States and EU Member States are steadily chipping away at the iceberg that is the global financial crisis. The European Parliament on Wednesday approved the so-called “Solvency II” Directive, which, if also approved by the Council of Ministers, constitutes a significant change in EU insurance and reinsurance law. Solvency II is designed to improve consumer protection, modernize supervision, and deepen market integration. Insurance groups would have a dedicated “group supervisor” that would enable better monitoring of the group as a whole.

Commission President José Manual Barroso said:

"Solvency II will help protect policy holders from bad practice. It will help shield our economies against a repeat of the disastrous excessive risk taking by financial institutions, including certain insurance operators, that has contributed to the global crisis."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The G20 meeting has slipped quietly below the water line as a news story in the United States—replaced by Michelle Obama's star power, the North Korean rocket, and the NCAA basketball championships. However, there are still some ripples from it moving across the seascape of U.S. politics.

In Europe, on the other hand, policy proposals are being drafted and, sometimes leaked, to gauge the views of constituents. The EC Commission’s proposal (though it has yet to be formally adopted) concerning regulation of private equity and hedge funds, an issue also hotly debated at G20, found its way into the media today—managers of hedge funds and private equity funds need to be registered while their funds must hold a minimum level of capital and also disclose information on borrowing to regulators.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In his visit to the White House this week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for a global "New Deal" for financial industry regulation. While harmonization is always tricky across international borders, the outline of just such a new regulatory regime may have taken shape with the release last week of the long-awaited de Larosière report in Europe.

The analysis and recommendations outlined in the de Larosière report attempt to provide for a comprehensive view, and despite being quite drastic by many measures, most commentators seem to approve of the group’s recommendations. Some observers believe that the group should have gone even further.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New Democrat Coalition is not especially new, but the recent changes resulting from the 2008 elections and the financial crisis have given it new prominence and increased importance in the House of Representatives. The New Dems may be the moderating force behind financial regulatory reform in Congress. Already, several of its centrist members helped stall the mortgage cramdown legislation that was scheduled for a House vote yesterday and is now pushed out to next week to allow for changes that can attract additional votes from moderates.

Founded in 1997, the New Democrat Coalition is “committed to enacting policies that encourage economic growth, maintain U.S. competitiveness, meet the new challenges posed by globalization in the 21st century, and strengthen our standing in the world.” With 67 Democratic House members, sixteen of whom are on the House Financial Services Committee, the coalition is taking on “regulatory reform of the financial services industry” through its Financial Services Task Force. It is chaired by Reps. Melissa Bean (D-IL) and Jim Himes (D-CT), who both have business backgrounds, and Himes is an alumnus of Goldman Sachs. The New Dems Chairwoman, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), is a former investment banker who was one of the first women ever to hold a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.

The group just released its 21 principles for financial regulatory reform organized around the goals of efficient and effective regulation; market stability and transparency; and robust consumer and investor protection. One principle shows a willingness to reform the way in which mark-to-market accounting rules are applied, something that House Republicans have wanted to do for months. Perhaps the New Dems can help revive the bipartisanship that has been lacking in the House thus far this year.

New Democrat Coalition's 21 Principles for Reforming the Financial System (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On both sides of the Atlantic, the looming deadline for the G20 Summit in London on 2 April is driving policymakers to come up with recommendations for global financial reform. The presentation of the de Larosiere “high level group,” which the EU commissioned and is headed by former French central banker Jacques de Larosiere, is now only a couple of days away from presenting its proposals for financial reform legislation. Expectations are that the proposals will be far-reaching. Observers regard the G20 meeting in Berlin over the weekend as part of the build-up of support for the proposals that many still may regard as controversial. The EU’s objective remains to create support for the proposals ahead of the G20 meeting.

At the meeting in Berlin, participants focused on the importance of transparency and accountability on the part of all financial market participants by affirming their conviction that all financial markets, products, and participants must be subject to appropriate oversight or regulation, without exception and regardless of their country of domicile. They agreed this is especially true for those private pools of capital, including hedge funds, that may present a systemic risk. The meeting therefore called for appropriate oversight or regulation of these sectors in order to prevent excessive risk-taking and also agreed that credit rating agencies should be subject to mandatory registration and oversight.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Who appointed the G7 (+1) to its perch? The finance ministers for the main protagonists in World War II (1939-1945) met in Rome over the weekend to discuss the world economic crisis. Does a meeting of this nature that excludes India and China truly have a hope of wrapping its collective mind around the problems and their possible solutions?

Is ideology standing in the way of the most elegant solution to the U.S. banking crisis? Give former President George W. Bush his due: when the dimensions of the banking crisis became apparent to him, he scrapped a "market guy" ideology and poured taxpayer money into the banks. Is the Obama Administration willing to take what for them would be a similar ideological leap? Is their unwillingness to do so behind the complex public-private partnership at the center of the Geithner proposal to deal with troubled assets? Is there a similar reason behind the relatively light-handed approach Geithner would take to pushing the banks to resume lending?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Next week President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner will unveil the administration’s broad financial reform agenda—a strategy to get credit moving again—but yesterday offered a preview as they unveiled new restrictions on executive compensation. The announcement was in direct response to public outrage over the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize “excessive compensation packages on Wall Street.” The president railed against “lavish bonuses” and a “culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else.” It will be interesting to see if this policy, which could affect compensation policies at industry-leading institutions, will result in a reduction and/or restructuring of executive compensation throughout the financial services industry. Even though the new policy appears intended to have just such a leavening effect on compensation, President Obama tried to reassure free-marketers by saying: “This is America. We don’t disparage wealth…and we believe success should be rewarded.”  But he went on to say that executives being rewarded for failure, especially with taxpayer money, is wrong.

The Treasury executive compensation reform guidelines fall into three categories covering:

• all TARP recipients;
• participants in a “generally available capital access program,” such as the Capital Purchase Program; and
• institutions that receive “exceptional assistance,” such as Citigroup, Bank of America, and AIG. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The flow of substantive input regarding the global financial architecture continues. While the recommended actions differ, most commentators concur that action is urgent and reform should be sweeping.

On 15 January, the Group of 30, chaired by Paul A. Volcker and comprised of leading policy-makers and business leaders from across the globe, issued the Framework for Financial Stability—a set of 18 recommendations for financial reform, including that:

• “In all countries, the activities of government-insured deposit-taking institutions should be subject to prudential regulation and supervision by a single regulator (that is, consolidated supervision).”
• “Gaps and weaknesses in the coverage of prudential regulation and supervision must be eliminated. All systemically significant financial institutions, regardless of type, must be subject to an appropriate degree of prudential oversight.”
• “In general, government-insured deposit-taking institutions should not be owned and controlled by unregulated non-financial organizations, and strict limits should be imposed on dealings among such banking institutions and partial non-bank owners.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the past days, more leading stakeholders have added their voices to the chorus arguing for a strategic re-design of global financial markets regulation.

On 9 January, the President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, spoke at a conference organized by the French Government, which also featured President Nicholas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair among its speakers. Trichet, speaking on the topic of “A Paradigm Change for the Global Financial System,” provided a scathing assessment of the failures of the financial system, not too dissimilar to that of Willem Buiter. Trichet remarked:

“The current crisis stands out because it is affecting the heart of the global financial system. Its root cause was a widespread undervaluation of risk in the global financial system, especially in the most advanced economies. This included an underestimation of the quantity of risk financial institutions took upon themselves and an under-pricing of the unit of risk. Risk was under-priced because, among other things, financial market participants largely extrapolated ongoing trends and the very low levels of volatility in financial markets and in the real economies going forward. “

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In spite of the holidays and new year celebrations, financial sector events have continued to unfold unremittingly, forcing EU policy makers to consider policy readjustments, yet again.

The scandal surrounding Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, the financial implications of which are global and yet to be fully discovered, is one of the most recent examples. No doubt, Madoff will give those supporting new financial regulation and oversight the upper hand in reform discussions just as Enron provided carte blanche for those promoting the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and its EU siblings, a few years ago.

One of the calls for new, drastic, financial reform—more difficult to argue against in a post-Madoff environment—comes from the distinguished Financial Times columnist Willem Buiter. In a recent speech, Buiter provided a damning analysis of the shortcomings of the financial system and also provided his recommendations for the appropriate policy responses. It would have been less surprising if these radical proposals had emanated from outraged elected officials, rather than from a professor of political economy at the London School of Economics.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Testimony from academics and industry during today’s House Financial Services Committee hearing produced broad bipartisan consensus that the current regulatory structure is outdated. Testifying on behalf of industry were leaders from the Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA), the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association (ABA), and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. As the committee’s first major hearing following the federal financial rescue efforts, it covered a wide swath of issues outlined below. 

• Creation of a Select Committee on Financial Reform—Chairman Barney Frank and several members supported this idea. In addition to Financial Services Committee members, a select committee would include members from the House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, Agriculture, and Ways and Means. One of the academic witnesses, University of Rochester President Joel Seligman, suggested a commission modeled after the 9-11 Commission. 
• Derivatives—What role did credit default swaps play in the financial crisis? Should there be increased capitalization requirements for derivatives’ issuers? The questions remain, but most agreed on the need for increased oversight of complex financial derivatives. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link