Hopefully, it is not an ominous sign of things to come.

Last week, the Senate confirmed former Kentucky insurance regulator S. Roy Woodall for the one voting position on the federal Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) reserved for someone with insurance expertise. The term is for six years.  The FSOC is in charge of monitoring the financial system to guard against the failure of the largest bank holding companies and non-bank financial institutions.

For the past year, Republicans in the House and Senate have worked together to prevent the approval of numerous president appointments both through regular order and through the use of recess appointment authority.  By keeping the House from adjourning when vacation and breaks come, the president has been unable to exercise his power thus sparing the nation from another round of liberal appointments that can do great damage to the country.

Because the confirmation process is often one of compromise and deal making, some worry about the possibility of a deal involving Richard Cordray and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Especially in light of the fact that the Senate Banking Committee has called a vote on the Cordray confirmation itself this Thursday, October 6.   Sources in the nation’s Capitol have told Big Government that liberal Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is pressuring Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) to break the logjam, as Cordray is from Ohio.

(more…)

Dr. Peter Diamond has once again found himself in the cross-hairs of Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the highest ranking Republican serving on the Senate Banking Committee.  A Nobel laureate and MIT professor, Diamond has been nominated three times for the vacant seat on the influential Federal Reserve Board, twice having been blocked by Republicans at the committee stage for approval to the full Senate.

At the nomination hearing this past Tuesday, Sen. Shelby provided a critical analysis of Diamond’s economic philosophy.

“In short, Dr. Diamond is an old-fashioned, big government Keynesian. Many of us believe that this is not the economic philosophy the Fed should be embracing at this point in our economic history. Our economy is already suffering from excessive government debt and misguided regulation.  Our financial regulators should be trying to take steps to strengthen our markets, rather than replace them with new layers of government.”

Shelby noted Diamond’s support of the President’s $800 billion stimulus package and his call for additional fiscal stimulus.  He also referenced a paper written by Diamond and former CBO Director Peter Orszag that argued for higher taxes.   “The policy preferences of Fed nominees matter,” Shelby observed.

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, a former bond trader and veteran of the financial services community, is no fan of the Fed’s monetary policy, which he feels is over accommodating.  He raised some serious concerns about the likelihood of rising inflation and the result that would have on the Fed’s forthcoming exit strategy from its monetary policy.

(more…)

From the great Peter Wallison in today’s Wall Street Journal:

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government’s cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion. That estimate may be too optimistic.

Last Christmas Eve, Treasury removed the $400 billion cap on what the government might be required to invest in these two GSEs in the future, and this may tell the real story about the cost to taxpayers. In typical Washington fashion, everyone has amnesia about how this disaster occurred.

The story is all too familiar. Politicians in positions of authority today had an opportunity to prevent this fiasco but did nothing. Now—in the name of the taxpayers—they want more power, but they have never been called to account for their earlier failings.

(more…)

A must read piece by Peter Wallison in today’s Wall Street Journal:

It’s hard to imagine a worse piece of financial regulatory legislation than the bill Barney Frank and the administration put before the House Financial Services Committee last month. But Sen. Chris Dodd’s effort, introduced last week, clears this hurdle

Much attention has focused on the fact that his “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” differs from the administration and Frank proposals by creating an entirely new agency to function as a “systemic regulator” of nonbank financial institutions, instead of the Federal Reserve. Far more important, however, is the regulatory and bailout powers it gives to the government. Here the Dodd bill follows the same flawed ideas advanced by the administration and Mr. Frank, but in some ways make things worse.

(more…)

Senator Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) approach to overhaul financial industry regulations is scheduled to be debated next week in the Senate Banking Committee with a mark-up of the bill starting in early December.  This bill is sold as an effort by the federal government to seize control of financial institutions with the potential to cause a financial market meltdown.  Sources in the Senate tell me that the true effect of this bill will be to lock in the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), give special treatment for the trading partners of financial institutions facing bankruptcy, and grant more power to the Federal Reserve Board in Washington over monetary policy.  This financial regulatory reform effort will create a massive new bureaucracy that will oversee financial institutions that will effectively serve as a Big Brother for Big Business.

From a Senate Banking Committee press release

“It is the job of this Congress to restore responsibility and accountability in our financial system to give Americans confidence that there is a system in place that works for and protects them,” Dodd said at the press conference.  “We must create a sound foundation to grow the economy and create jobs.”

The problem is that the big government approach to the financial regulatory reform effort may harm economic growth and grants sweeping new political powers to the Federal Reserve over monetary policy.  The big ticket item for the legislation is the creation of a new federal bureacracy called the “Consumer Financial Protection Agency.”   The discussion draft of the legislation describes the new agency as “an independent watchdog to ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products, while prohibiting hidden fees, abusive terms, and deceptive practices.”    The fact of the matter is that this new government entity distracts freedom loving Americans from many other disturbing aspects of this bill that will grow government and harm economic prosperity.

(more…)

Despite the few voices of caution, risk and leverage had become a national fixation, embraced both on Wall Street and in government. The SEC and the Fed, the main regulators in charge of monitoring the buildup of risky assets on the banks’ books, together with the rating agencies, were the modern-day equivalents of Nero fiddling as Rome burned.The fire in this case was the massive and rapid buildup of mortgage debt on the balance sheets of the banks; by 2006 it was approaching $1 trillion and heading higher without so much as a peep from the traditional watchdogs.

Still, the risk taking and leverage went beyond the brokerage houses and the banks. The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were in the game as well. By now, Fannie and Freddie had fully and completely conceded their original mandates to the whims of the Washington political class, which demanded “affordable” housing for all, even those who couldn’t afford it. The politicians were giddy with Fannie and Freddie’s conversion from staid mortgage banks to subprime lenders that would make Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of the largest subprime lender in the markets, Countrywide Financial, envious.

It was an evolution that took years in the making. As HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo boasted in one report in the late 1990s that the new mandates he was imposing on Fannie and Freddie to ramp up subprime lending “could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas.”

(more…)