TPMDC
« Bachmann Spokesman: Her Remarks About Revolution Were Metaphorical | Home | Polls: Public Really Doesn't Like AIG »

Bernanke Argues For Emergency Federal Power Over Major Non-Bank Financial Institutions

In his opening statement, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made the case for legislation--soon to be introduced by the administration on the hill--that would create guidelines and authority for the government to take non-bank financial institutions (like, say, Lehman Bros. and AIG) into conservatorship or receivership. Bernanke said:

The decision by the Federal Reserve on September 16, 2008, with the full support of the Treasury, to lend up to $85 billion to AIG should be viewed with this background in mind. At that time, no federal entity could provide capital to stabilize AIG and no federal or state entity outside of a bankruptcy court could wind down AIG. Unfortunately, federal bankruptcy laws do not sufficiently protect the public's strong interest in ensuring the orderly resolution of nondepository financial institutions when a failure would pose substantial systemic risks, which is why I have called on the Congress to develop new emergency resolution procedures. However, the Federal Reserve did have the authority to lend on a fully secured basis, consistent with our emergency lending authority provided by the Congress and our responsibility as central bank to maintain financial stability. We took as collateral for our loan AIG's pledge of a substantial portion of its assets, including its ownership interests in its domestic and foreign insurance subsidiaries. This decision bought time for subsequent actions by the Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve that have avoided further failures of systemically important institutions and have supported improvements in key credit markets.

Geithner said much the same in his own opening statement. That's the line from the administration. What this means for AIG, but also existing banks and other financial institutions is still an open question. Let's see if Geithner or Bernanke or William C. Dudley (President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Fed, also testifying) tip their hands.


14 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I'm all for giving some federal agency authority to take non-bank financial institutions into receiverships. This is the legislation that Bernanke and Paulson should have requested back in October. (Although, no one should be surprised that receiverships weren't the favorite approach for the former Goldman CEO.)

user-pic

I'm not so sure this is a reason rather than an excuse for previous (in)action, but I'm more than happy to remove the excuse for the future.

By the way, anybody who doesn't think popular anger over bailouts contributed to this proposal is dreaming. "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -Frederick Douglass

user-pic

I remember President Obama talking about his vision for changes to the regulations during his campaign.

Instead of regulating companies by the type of company (insurance company, hedge fund or bank) he proposed writing regulations by their activity. This would have applied to a company like AIG, which was nominally an insurance company but was selling contracts that were not insurance. The CDSs they were selling were essentially unregulated because they didn't fall under insurance company regulations.

user-pic

The problem is that we (and he) can not know what will cause future emergencies and the only "relevant" powers he will be able to demand are those which will be designed to prevent something that has already happened. Note that this state of affairs is pretty much the definition of PTSD.

What Bernanke should be suggesting is that unregulated financial instruments should be statutorially forbidden to receive tax dollars. No regulation, no bailout. Ever.

user-pic

He ain't gonna get anything because Bernanke and geithner have been demonized as boobs. It gives the GOP an out saying "You guys are boobs, we ain't gonna give you any regulatory powers"...

user-pic

As if the GOP has the power . . .

user-pic

They do when the progressive left is supporting them. The GOP and progressives are neutering Geithner - any changes Obama wanted regarding regulation and oversight isn't going to happen.

user-pic

Wanna bet? Geithner and Bernanke will get what they want.

Look, the progressives might not like Geithner but they know he's not going anywhere. It's either him or nobody. They are not going to tie the president's hands when he's trying to deal with this mess. They know that if they don't give him the leeway to TRY to to make this work, the Dems will go down in flames in 2010.


user-pic

The idea that pro-regulation Democrats will block regulatory changes just because they don't like the administration's treasurer for being too close to Wall Street is rediculous.

The same goes for public opinion. When the admin was belatedly forced to respond to AIG, the public didn't suddenly change their attitude on that matter because they trust the government less. Not only is it not reflected in public opinion polling, but it confuses causation and effect.

user-pic

You nailed it.

user-pic

Personally I'm some what hesitant about this. I would have much preferred that these entities not have been aloud to get so big to begin with. Vis-vis the trust busters of the past. However given the current situation, they cannot be aloud to blackmail and hold the government hostage by a threat of bankruptcy that would send the economy crashing down.

I would hope that any legislation would be written very carefully. Remember there is a possibility that another "Bush" or a "McCain" type could get elected. Would anyone want someone like that to be able to do this ?

C

user-pic

That's been my thinking on this whole thing - if the problem is that these entities are too big to fail, then the anti-trust division of the DOJ has fallen down on the job.

user-pic

>> would have much preferred that these entities not have been aloud to get so big to begin with. However given the current situation, they cannot be aloud to blackmail . . .>>

Don't you mean "allowed"?

user-pic

Yes...but they were screaming too.

C

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address