THE HILL
 

Obama calls House wind-down legislation essential

By Silla Brush - 10/27/09 08:45 PM ET

President Barack Obama said legislation unveiled by a key House panel on Tuesday to grant the government new powers to deal with failing financial firms is "absolutely essential" so that the taxpayers don't need to foot future bailouts.

In a letter to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Obama said the government must have the ability to dissolve financial firms so that the losses are absorbed by equity holders and creditors, not taxpayers.

"No financial system can work effectively if financial institutions and investors operate with the belief that the government will act to protect them from the consequences of their failures," Obama wrote. "This belief creates a perverse incentive for large firms to take reckless risks."

The Obama administration and Frank worked closely on the legislation, one of the more controversial elements of a broad push to overhaul the financial regulatory system. The administration has pressed for the new powers to overcome the problem of "too big to fail" that plagued lawmakers last year when the credit crisis erupted. The government did not have all the tools it needed, the Obama administration has argued, when Lehman Brothers collapsed.

"Emergency authority to contain financial panics is absolutely necessary but should be targeted at providing liquidity and preventing the spread of failure from insolvent firms to otherwise viable institutions," Obama wrote.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65115-obama-calls-house-wind-down-legislation-essential

Comments (2)

…and who determines what firms are insolvent? Someone from the government, right? Why does this not surprise me.BY Pete on 10/27/2009 at 23:02
It seems that what this "resolution authority" will codify is the same approach that the Federal Reserve took in 1998 when they forced the Wall Street dealers to rescue Long Term Capital Management. Here is Alan Greenspan testifying to the Senate Banking Committee in October of 1998.."The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's efforts were designed solely to enhance the probability of an orderly private-sector adjustment, not to dictate the path that adjustment would take.As President McDonough just related, no Federal Reserve funds were put at risk, no promises were made by the Federal Reserve, and no individual firms were pressured to participate. Officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York facilitated discussions in which the private parties arrived at an agreement that both served their mutual self interest and avoided possible serious market dislocations. Financial market participants were already unsettled by recent global events. Had the failure of LTCM triggered the seizing up of markets, substantial damage could have been inflicted on many market participants, including some not directly involved with the firm, and could have potentially impaired the economies of many nations, including our own."http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/19981001.htmIt's not clear that these large firms can be adequately supervised or regulated. Many have advocated "narrow banking" or separating commercial and investment banking as a more stable approach.http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Narrow_bankBY Cate Long on 10/27/2009 at 23:20

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.