Simon Johnson of Baseline Scenario points to a tough amendment to the not-so-tough Dodd financial-reform bill (so not-so-tough, in fact, that Larry Kudlow calls it “terrific free market reform!”) to ask whether the Volcker Rules live.
Those are the ones the administration (or the president part of it, anyway) pitched to rein in the size of too-big-to-fail banks and to limit the ability of commercial banks to gamble with deposits.
Sen. Sherrod Brown’s amendment would force the breakup of ginormo banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. Anyone with liabilities (including off-balance-sheet ones) totaling more than 3 percent of GDP would have to break itself up in three years and everyone would have to remain under that limit.
U.S. gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008 (less in 2009 but no numbers yet). That would put the cap on liabilities at $426 billion. To put that in perspective, between them, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup would each have to split themselves into at least five companies. BoA has $2 trillion in liabilities, JPMorgan has $1.9 trillion, while Citigroup has a measly $1.7 trillion.
On its face, this is a dangerous concentration of power. The top six banks have assets totaling 63 percent of GDP, up from 17 percent in fifteen years, as Johnson reported in The New Republic last month. Further (emphasis mine):
The banks have the power to preserve this arrangement. While the U.S. financial system has a long tradition of functioning well with a relatively large number of banks and other intermediaries, in recent years, it has been transformed into a highly concentrated system for key products. The big four have half of the market for mortgages and two-thirds of the market for credit cards. Five banks have over 95 percent of the market for over-the-counter derivatives. Three U.S. banks have over 40 percent of the global market for stock underwriting. This degree of market power brings with it not just antitrust concerns, which this administration has declined to act on, and a huge amount of economic risk—but great political influence as well.
It’s worth noting that antitrust actions, which is not quite what Sherrod’s amendment is—let’s call it an “antibust” action—have benefited markets before (think Ma Bell). But what about the economies of scale, you say. “There are no economies of scale for banks above $100 billion in total assets,” Johnson notes.
Of course, such a tough amendment as Brown’s has about as much chance of passing as I have of getting a $9 million bonus from CJR. For why (on the former!), see Johnson’s incredible Atlantic piece last year on the oligarchy’s “Quiet Coup.” Hey, this is turning into a Simon Johnson Reader.
But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.
In today’s post, Johnson hits on a critical point worth exploring further:
… there’s a big problem with relying on subtle regulators. Over the past thirty years, almost all our regulators and supervisors have become either sleepy or captured – in a cognitive sense – by the very people they are supposed to be watching over.
There’s no doubt about that. And that’s why Johnson recommends firm legislative requirements that force the situation, rather than relying on the wacky idea that some future systemic-risk regulator will really dismantle a Lehman Brothers or AIG because it becomes too big and dangerous.