Financial Reform Watch : Financial Services News & Information : Blank Rome Government Relations Lobbying Firm : Government Relations, Corporate Governance : Financial Reform Watch Law Blog

 Congress was in recess last week for the President’s Day holiday, but Senate Banking Committee staff remained focused on financial reform. Despite the fact that committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) was spending his break on a congressional trip to Central America – by happenstance with his new negotiating partner Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) – the committee staff announced that the Chairman would release his “new wide-ranging bill" this week. As of today, that deadline has already slipped to the first week of March, meaning that the committee will not markup the legislation until the second or third week of March at the earliest.

We are hearing reports that the new draft will establish a council of regulators, led by the Treasury Secretary, responsible for monitoring systemic risk across the entire financial system. There have also been reports the draft will include provisions for a new bankruptcy-like system to wind down institutions previously considered “too big to fail.” The FDIC is expected to have a key role in that process.

Separately last week, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the committee’s Ranking Republican, announced that he was working on a Republican alternative to the Chairman’s financial reform draft. Shelby has made no public statements about Corker’s decision to work with Dodd, but the fact that Shelby is producing his own bill speaks volumes.

There is a lot of prognosticating right now. Corker’s positions are far more in line with Shelby’s than Dodd’s. The question is will Corker be able to convince Dodd to pass a streamlined bill that deals with a few key issues and tables the thorny issue of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency? Many industry experts are saying that Dodd and Shelby would have already worked out that deal if it was possible, and the Republican caucus is likely of the same mind, which puts Corker in a tough position. The outlook for financial reform continues to be very uncertain.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) continue to work towards bipartisan agreement on at least some key elements of a financial reform measure. While the process has been a rocky one, both Senators appear to be working hard to find common ground. They appear to have found agreement on at least two things:

1. There will NOT be a stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  Rather, consumer protections functions will be folded into another agency or agencies.

2. The president's proposal to limit the size of financial institutions (the "Volcker rule") has complicated the process and may have come too late in the game.

Our contacts on the Hill are telling us to expect committee action on a financial reform package by the end of the month. Regardless of the final outcome of the Dodd-Shelby discussions, the Chairman appears committed to moving ahead.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

That is the recent refrain of Senate Banking Committee Republicans when asked about the financial services regulatory reform bill now pending in the Senate.

While Republicans have expressed continued willingness to work with committee Democrats to develop bipartisan legislation that would address the root causes of the recent financial crisis, they appear in no hurry to pass a bill—and certainly not what they consider a “bad bill”—just for the sake of having a bill.

As a whole, Senate Banking Committee Republicans think the Dodd bill and the House-passed reform bill go too far. Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) seems well aware of that fact and, as reported previously, has constituted numerous working groups to hammer out the various issues. Those groups are currently working together to resolve outstanding issues, with varying degrees of progress.

While the committee has been expected to mark-up its version of the financial reform bill in February, that schedule will depend upon the level of progress and bipartisanship the committee is able to achieve. One major stumbling block has been the establishment of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA)—a signature issue of the Obama Administration. Chairman Dodd has reportedly expressed a willingness to move away from the CFPA in a favor of giving more consumer protection authority to existing prudential regulators—a position also favored by committee Republicans.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner notified Congress today that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) would be extended until October 3, 2010 – a move that, although expected, adds fuel to an ongoing debate on Capitol Hill whether to wind down the politically unpopular program or utilize its excess funds for broader economic recovery efforts.

In a letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Geithner sought to quell political concerns by outlining a TARP “exit strategy” and narrowing the program’s focus to three specific areas in 2010: home foreclosure mitigation; small-business lending; and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) in order to facilitate lending through securitization markets.  According to Geithner, no TARP funds will be spent beyond these specific areas “unless necessary to respond to an immediate and substantial threat to the economy.”  In addition, the Capital Purchase Program – aimed at boosting bank lending through nearly $250 billion in direct capital injections – will cease.

Key to the administration’s TARP extension is the assumption that only $550 billion of the $700 billion program will be necessary for deployment, a figure buoyed by Treasury estimates that TARP-recipient banks could repay as much as $175 billion by the end of 2010.  Sanguine figures such as these have opened the floodgates to recent congressional proposals that would use TARP proceeds to create or expand economic recovery initiatives -- including a job-creation proposal outlined yesterday by President Obama – and, at the same time, remain budget-neutral.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On home improvement shows, it’s called the big “reveal.”  In Washington, the “reveal” is expected on Monday in the Senate Banking Committee with the much anticipated release of Chairman Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) omnibus financial reform bill. Rumors of its content have been leaking out for several days. Also being revealed --although it has been hinted at for weeks-- is the partisan divide that has opened up on Chairman Dodd's committee.

One of the most controversial elements expected to be in Dodd’s plan is the removal of bank supervisor authorities from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision in order to consolidate those authorities into one new super bank regulator. Neither the administration proposal nor House Financial Services Committee measures contemplated this approach. In fact, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) has criticized the concept because it does not “respect and preserve the dual banking system;” it undercuts the role of state bank supervisors; and it fails to preserve the role of the FDIC, an agency that Frank thinks is performing well.

Other expected provisions are a “Council of Regulators” approach to systemic risk; a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that will have oversight over most financial service products except for insurance or securities; credit rating agency reform; resolution authority for large financial institutions; and regulation of derivatives. Dodd plans to hold one or more hearings on his bill the week of November 16th and expects the committee to markup the bill after Thanksgiving.

Dodd has decided to move ahead without the support and assistance of Ranking Member Shelby (R-AL) and the other committee Republicans. Some are viewing this as a setback given that Dodd and Shelby had made a show in the past year of their shared views on some key parts of the financial reform agenda. Over the past six-to-eight weeks, as Dodd has pushed to pull the package together, it became clear the GOP side of the committee was reticent to come along. While this prevents the bipartisan approach Dodd had wanted, it does free him to take the bold approach it now appears we will see. Given the importance to his re-election of appearing to shake-up the financial establishment, Dodd may benefit from the freedom to stake out this turf. Whether that will contribute to the ultimate enactment of legislation remains to be seen.

Watch this space early in the week for a discussion of the outlook on the House side for continuation of the progress in assembling a comprehensive financial reform package.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gaining strong momentum after its passage out of the House Financial Services Committee last week, a bill crafted by Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) ran into a significant and unforeseen roadblock on Thursday – fellow Democrat and equally powerful House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (CA). In what could have been a routine markup of H.R. 3126, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- whose jurisdiction includes consumer protection and Federal Trade Commission oversight -- made dramatic changes to Frank's bill. One of the most obvious can be gathered from the amended bill's title: the Consumer Financial Protection Commission Act of 2009.

Waxman and the committee's Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) collaborated on the manager’s amendment that would dramatically shift the agency’s governance from a single director to a commission led by a five-person bipartisan panel. Modeled after independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, the chairman and commissioners would be nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and serve staggered five year terms

Frank expressed sharp disapproval of the Waxman approach, referring to the commission model as “a big mistake” that will “weaken the capacity of the agency to provide consumer protection.” Frank defended the House Financial Services version as a balanced approach that allows a CFPA director to take prompt action, while at the same time, receiving the necessary recommendations and oversight from a board comprised of bank regulators and consumer groups. The differences may need to be resolved on the House floor. Waxman indicated he would have further changes during the floor debate, specifically removing some of the industry exemptions that were carved out by the House Financial Services legislation, including those for merchants, retailers and auto dealers.

The House Rules Committee will be the next stop for the bills where Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) will execute the will of the House Democratic leadership and likely resolve the differences. It would not be in the best interest of the White House or congressional Democrats to have two of its most powerful chairmen battle over consumer protection on the House floor. The schedule is not yet posted, but the Rules Committee reconciliation could occur as early as next week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following last week’s unveiling of his newly-modified draft bill to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) announced Wednesday his intention mark up the bill the week of October 12. While the philosophical debate between House Democrats and Republicans over the CFPA’s creation may be coming to a close, the debate amongst Democrats over the CFPA’s contours may be just beginning.

Federal preemption of state banking regulations is one of the first issues to divide Democrats. During Wednesday's committee hearing, Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns over a provision in Frank’s draft that would scrap federal preemption laws related to consumer protection. The Frank bill would have the CFPA set a minimum federal threshold and enable the states to set stricter rules if they choose. The potential exposure of nationally chartered banks to different consumer financial protection laws in every state is a prospect some fear would be overly cumbersome.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Even Cabinet Members (maybe ESPECIALLY Cabinet Members) need an August break. Various media outlets have reported that Treasury Secretary Geithner delivered an expletive-laced tirade to the principal U.S. financial regulators during a meeting last Friday, in what sources say was a clear show of frustration over the internal opposition to some key elements of the Obama administration's financial regulatory proposal.

Fortunately, for inquisitive lawmakers, several of the meeting attendees were on Capitol Hill today to testify before the Senate Banking Committee on “Strengthening and Streamlining Prudential Bank Supervision,” including Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Sheila Bair, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo, Acting Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) John Bowman and Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan.

Confirming the veracity of the reports, the regulators were also unwilling to soften their criticism, as Bair and her fellow regulators expressed sharp resistance to the administration's proposal to consolidate the bank supervisory functions of the OTS and the OCC into a new National Banking Supervisor -- citing concerns that unified regulation would undercut the interests of community banks and would do little to close the most glaring regulatory gaps that occurred in the non-bank, or "shadow," banking system.

After hearing from the witnesses, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) openly speculated about the administration's plan, commenting that it is “…a thoughtful proposal but I wonder if it is the right prescription.”  Then again, Dodd’s comments may offer more insight on where his mind has focused these past several weeks than about the financial reform outlook.

The House adjourned last Friday and the Senate will adjourn this Friday for the August recess. Dodd is going home to face some challenging poll numbers as he gears up his 2010 re-election campaign. The opinion landscape is shifting rapidly, and legislators may come back in September with some different notions than they left with in August. One thing is for certain, it is going to be a very busy fall.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The House of Representatives took the first steps towards enacting President Obama’s sweeping financial reform proposal today, voting 237-185 to approve the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009 (H.R. 3269) requiring all publicly-held companies to hold non-binding annual shareholder votes and expanding SEC authority over incentive-based compensation structures. Although the bill’s passage represents a major victory for the president and the Democratic Congress, it may prove to be the least controversial element of financial reform, as stark divisions remain on both sides of the aisle concerning the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency and an expanded role for the Fed as a systemic risk regulator.

Unsurprisingly, this afternoon’s vote fell largely along party lines, with only two GOP members supporting the measure and 16 Democrats opposing. The House also approved, by a vote of 242-178, an amendment offered by Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) that struck language prohibiting “clawbacks ” of executive compensation approved by shareholders. The amendment also inserted language that would prohibit clawbacks of incentive-based pay if a compensation agreement was in effect prior to this bill's enactment.

As the executive compensation legislation moves to the other side of the Capitol, conventional wisdom dictates that the Senate saucer will ultimately cool the House’s hot teacup – but this historical assumption may not apply for this bill.  The executive compensation debate was further inflamed yesterday following the release of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's report showing that the nine largest U.S. banks paid out $32.6 billion in bonuses in 2008 -- a year in which total losses reached $81 billion and nearly $200 billion of taxpayer money was directly injected through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  Moreover, a handful of lawmakers on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee currently facing tough re-election bids in 2010 – including Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) – will likely avoid putting themselves in a vulnerable political position by advocating reforms that deviate too much from the House legislation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Expanding shareholder voting rights to include corporate executive compensation has been a topic of considerable debate in Washington over the past few years, but not until the fall of 2008—when the federal government began undertaking unprecedented steps to stabilize the financial system—did “say on pay” gain real momentum. By late fall, there was strong public outcry for action as recipients of government bailout money reported high executive salaries and bonuses that appeared disconnected from their companies' financial health.

Congress took the first steps towards strengthening investor influence by imposing say on pay requirements for all Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in February. However, in response to public uproar over American International Group’s (AIG) distribution of $165 million in corporate bonuses to their much-maligned financial products unit, the Obama Administration went one step further in early June by proposing an extension of say on pay to all publicly-traded companies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Treasury Department today released draft legislative language that would require all public companies to hold annual, non-binding shareholder votes on executive compensation packages as well as impose stricter standards to ensure the independence of corporate compensation committees. The "Say on Pay" proposal is modeled after a rule the United Kingdom adopted in 2002. Starting December 15, 2009, proxy materials will have to include tables summarizing the salary, bonus, stock option awards, and total compensation package for senior executives and also narrative explanations of any golden parachute and pension compensation packages. In the event of a merger or acquisition, companies will need to hold separate votes on golden parachutes and must lay out simply and clearly what the departing executives will receive.

To ensure the independence of corporate compensation committee members, the legislation calls for "exacting new standards" modeled on how Sarbanes Oxley established the independence of audit committees. The provisions would require compensation committees to be granted the funding and authority necessary to hire compensation consultants, legal counsel, and other advisers—all of whom should be independent of the company's management—to help the committee negotiate pay packages that are "in the best interests of shareholders."

Financial Reform Watch will be tracking this legislation as it moves through Congress.

Treasury: Proposed Legislation re Executive Compensation or "Say on Pay" (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late yesterday afternoon, the Treasury Department released draft legislation that would require advisers to hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, and other private pools of capital to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they have more than $30 million of assets under management. In addition to registering, the advisers will be subjected to new reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, and disclosure requirements as well as conflict of interest and anti-fraud prohibitions. In its release, Treasury said,

"The Administration's legislation would help protect investors from fraud and abuse, provide increased transparency, and provide the information necessary to assess whether risks in the aggregate or risks in any particular fund pose a threat to our overall financial stability."

Financial Reform Watch will be tracking this legislation as it moves through Congress.

Treasury:  Proposed Legislatve Language for the Registration of Hedge Funds (PDF) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The quick emergence of GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy has been viewed as a victory for the Obama Administration in demonstrating that the government is focused on moving the companies through their restructuring and keeping them on the road to once again being private companies. Now a majority of Members of the House, including two key Democratic leaders, are pushing legislation that could jeopardize the restructuring plans supported by the White House.

As we write this, a bipartisan group of 240 House Members and 20 Senators are supporting legislation that will allow auto dealers who have lost their franchises in the restructuring to recover them simply by requesting their reinstatement from the auto companies. The legislation was attached to the House version of the Financial Services Appropriations bill last week by a unanimous vote of 60 to 0. The legislation would require Chrysler and GM, at the request of an auto dealer, to restore the dealer franchise agreement in effect prior to each manufacturer’s bankruptcy proceeding. The bill could save around 2000 franchises according to some estimates, although that may be high, since many dealers have already closed. Some had feared the House Rules Committee would remove the language from the Financial Services Appropriations bill, but the language will remain in section 745 of the bill when the House votes on the measure tomorrow.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) changed the game yesterday with his announcement that the House would tackle financial reform by considering a series of smaller, targeted bills rather than a more comprehensive reform bill. Frank said he anticipates his committee will move four to six separate bills between July and the end of the year. First out of the gate will be legislation to create a new "Consumer Financial Protection Agency" proposed by the Obama administration.

With Frank’s Senate counterpart, Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT), fully occupied managing health care legislation, the timeline continues to slip in the upper chamber. Frank remains committed, however, to working the major issues through his committee this summer, and has already scheduled thirteen hearings and markups for July.

There is little doubt Congress will impose new consumer protections on the financial service industry. Whether it will create a new agency to police them remains to be seen. Given budget concerns and other competing priorities, Congress may ultimately determine to enhance the consumer protection requirements, including simplified disclosure, within the existing regulatory framework of the SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, and the potentially combined Offices of the Comptroller of the Currency and Thrift Supervision.

House Financial Services Committee Schedule

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tired of being labeled as obstructionists, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday issued their plan for financial regulatory reform. Led by the committee’s Ranking Minority Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and TARP Congressional Oversight Committee member Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the Republican solutions stem from three principles – prevent any future Wall Street bailouts; stop the government from picking winners and losers in the financial system; and restore market discipline.

While the Republican plan does not address every issue -- most notably missing is insurance regulation – those included represent a consensus view within their caucus. Bachus described their plan as a “line in the sand” from which Republicans can negotiate with the Democrats. Hensarling, who before coming to Congress served on the executive compensation committee of a company publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, was particularly critical of the latest push to regulate compensation. A better approach, Hensarling believes, is the creation of a new “Market Stability and Capital Adequacy Board,” which would be charged with flagging risky practices across the board. The Republicans offered as an example the practice of rewarding loan originators for loan volume with no regard to loan quality, saying that such a board would have been able to halt that.

The White House plans to release its comprehensive reform plan on June 17th. Will the Obama administration give a nod to bipartisanship by including a few elements of the Republican plan? Financial Reform Watch will compare and contrast the plans later this week.

Central Elements of the Republican Plan

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link