Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

Follow on Twitter

As America approaches the sixth anniversary of the 2008 financial crash, here’s an encouraging thought: The mega-banks can be broken up. It’s already in the law. Forty-one words of the 2,000-page Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform Act empower the regulators to take this step. To exercise this momentous power, the regulators must take some initial steps in preparation. And on August 5, 2014, the regulators did just that.

Some background: On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. Normally, bankruptcy serves as an orderly means to either close a business or reorganize it. Creditors suffer a reduction if not complete loss of the funds lent to the bankrupt company. Lehman’s bankruptcy, however, triggered contagion throughout the economy. Why? Because its size and complexity touched too many creditors. When some of the same internal problems Lehman suffered became manifest at other mega-banks, Washington responded with bailouts for them rather than triggering more unmanageable contagion from bankruptcies. These banks were simply too big to fail (TBTF). What’s more, the government’s crisis managers actually made the TBTF problem worse by consolidating some of the smaller, failing firms, with the largest failing firms. To JP Morgan’s sprawling empire, for example, the government added Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act attempted to address TBTF with numerous provisions. In Section 165, mega-banks must adopt “credible” provisional bankruptcy plans colloquially known as “living wills.” To be credible, they must prove to regulators that their failure could be handled in an orderly fashion and would not trigger financial contagion or require public funding assistance. If regulators determine they are “not credible,” regulators can order changes, including divestiture of assets — a break-up. These powers are contained in 41 words of the Dodd-Frank statute.

On August 5, the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. declared that the “living will” plans by 11 large banks submitted in 2013 are “not credible.” The 11 banks are Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, and the US units of Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and UBS.

Six years after the financial crisis demonstrated that the mega-banks are too big to fail, regulators have now officially determined that more must be done before one can fail without triggering a bailout.

Why did the banks fail to submit credible plans? Some argue that the banks’ failed intentionally. They don’t want to produce a roadmap for orderly deconstruction because, at the point of failure, they want a government bailout. FDIC Vice Chair Tom Hoenig provided some evidence for this theory when he expressed dissatisfaction that the mega-banks derivatives portfolios hadn’t be altered to make them part of the bankruptcy process. Currently, derivatives can be settled immediately with the declaration of bankruptcy even as other credit relations must wait for the court. Derivatives are the bets banks make, largely with other banks. About a third of the world’s $700 trillion in outstanding derivatives bets are held by just four American banks.

Continue Reading

Share/Bookmark

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, an opponent of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, is convening a “Jobs 1st Summit” in Pittsburgh this week.

Pennsylvania currently ranks 48th out of the 50 states in job growth. Despite the abundance of evidence that regulations can create jobs, Corbett often echoes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce talking point about “job-killing regulations.”

An instructive item on the summit agenda is an energy industry panel moderated by Chris Abruzzo, secretary of Pennsylvania’s EPA.

Abruzzo claimed during confirmation hearings to be unaware that climate change is harmful. And Pennsylvanians are supposed to trust this official to protect our air, water and public lands?

Abruzzo’s appointment and role at the summit as moderator of a discussion among executives of polluting industries shows the absurd degree Corbett’s administration is willing to distort the priorities of government agencies that are supposed to protect the public interest.

Such a summit of CEOs begs the question: Does giving corporations everything they want translate to prosperity to the rest of us?

The obvious answer: Of course it doesn’t.

As a general rule, cost-benefit analyses are suspect.

Such analyses – which federal agencies perform to weigh the health and safety “benefits” of regulations (benefits like lower infant mortality rates and reliably safe and clean drinking water) against the “cost” of lost profits to Corporate America – result in a distorted model of a regulation’s impact. Invariably, the distortion creates a bias that exaggerates the regulation’s “cost,” largely because cost (measured in dollars and cents) is more easily quantified than benefits.

So one might think it’s a good thing that economists at the FDA have started factoring in pleasure – or, more specifically, its loss – when weighing the costs and benefits of new regulations. And one might think that a regulation that is expected to result in lower infant mortality rates, fewer cancer diagnoses, and longer, healthier lives for the American public to be a winner in terms of “pleasure,” right?

Unfortunately, one would be wrong.

Shockingly, the FDA’s cost-benefit analysis for a new tobacco regulation resulted in the rule’s projected health and safety benefits – fewer instances of heart and lung disease and fewer early deaths – being reduced by 70 percent due to the “loss in pleasure” smokers endure when trying to break their addiction.

As an ex-smoker myself (tobacco-free since 2008), I am well aware that the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal certainly constitute a “loss in pleasure.” But the notion that a smoker’s physical discomfort for a relatively brief period of time somehow trumps by 70 percent the health benefits of quitting (not to mention the increase in one’s disposable income and the gradual restoration of one’s senses of taste and smell) is utterly outrageous.

Continue Reading

Tuesday marked the beginning of a series of public hearings on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule to limit carbon emissions from our nation’s power sector. The hearings took place over the course of four days in Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

The proposal – and subject of the public forums – aims to cut overall carbon pollution from existing power plants to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, a goal the U.S. is already halfway to achieving. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration data, current carbon emissions from the energy sector have fallen nearly 15 percent from 2005.

That’s why the proposal not only is achievable, but we can do much better. In fact, the science demands – and our technological advancements allow for – a more aggressive plan to cut climate-causing pollution.

Public Citizen staff and activists turned out to each hearing to deliver to the EPA the message that we all support an aggressive plan that uses our vast renewable energy sources and cost-saving efficiency technologies to address the largest source of U.S. climate altering pollution (power plants).

Public Citizen Standing up to Dirty Energy, Standing up for Consumers and the Climate:

On the first day of testimony in Denver, I told the EPA that “Public Citizen supports strong carbon emissions regulations. The unlimited dumping of carbon into our atmosphere has led to a global climate crisis. We can no longer afford inaction or half measures. We urge the EPA to strengthen its proposed plan by adequately reflecting the role of energy efficiency and renewable energy in transitioning to a clean and affordable energy economy.

Allison Fisher testifying at the EPA hearing in Denver on July 29.

Allison Fisher testifying at the EPA hearing in Denver

That same day in Atlanta, Public Citizen member, Albert Roesel, a retired teacher, told the EPA, “I have been distraught watching this climate catastrophe cascading in the late years of my life, having grown up with the idea that each generation is obligated to leave succeeding generations better off, knowing that instead, we have loaded the dice against the dreams of our children. Now with EPA’s Clean Power Plan, I have a glimmer of hope. It’s not enough, but it’s a start.”

Continue Reading

by David Arkush

Next week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold field hearings in Denver, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C., on the carbon pollution rule it proposed on June 2. The EPA calls it the Clean Power Plan. We care a lot about the rule, and you’ll be hearing more about it in the coming year. Also, Public Citizen members, activists and staff will be attending and speaking at the hearings. You’ll hear more about that next week.

Right now, I just wanted to note something odd in this story from The Hill: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky.) is complaining about the ID requirements to get into the federal buildings in which the hearings will take place. The ID requirements mean that some of his constituents won’t be able to attend!

Ahem. Voter ID laws, anyone? It’s really rich to hear a Republican leader complaining about ID requirements in a disenfranchisement-y way. Also, the requirements are from the 2005 REAL ID Act, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.