Wall St. Reform’s Death by Study

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidberkowitz/2852187854/">David Berkowitz</a>


When Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) unveiled his financial reform bill last Monday, among the numerous reforms included—an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, greater say on executive compensation, a risk council created to prevent too-big-to-fail situations—was a version of what’s called the “Volcker Rule.” Named for the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, the rule in Dodd’s bill would ban insured banks from engaging in risky proprietary trading (i.e., trading for their own gain, as opposed to trading for their customers—a practice rife with conflicts of interest) and sponsoring casino-like entities like hedge funds and private equity funds. But there was a rub: Instead of mandating the “Volcker Rule,” Dodd’s bill requires a six-month study by the newly created financial risk council, after which the council will recommend whether or not to implement it. That study, as some observers see it, would more likely kneecap or kill the Volcker Rule than anything else.

A look at the nearly 400 amendments offered by senators on the banking committee, which begins marking up the bill this evening, shows the Death-By-Study strategy could become a tool to blunt financial reform. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the top GOPer on the banking committee, is the king of the study so far, judging by nine study-related amendments he’s offered. Among others, he’s requested studies to replace: the SEC’s rulemaking power on arbitration, mandatory pre-dispute arbitration, and the Volcker Rule. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), in addition to requesting an exemption for banks with $150 million or less in assets from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which tightened accounting and disclosure standards for public companies, wants a study to see whether banks with $700 million or less shouldn’t be exempted, too. An amendment offered by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) would move an existing bankruptcy study in the bill from the tough, independent Government Accountability Office to the financial risk council, which is headed by top financial regulators.

That’s not to say all proposed studies are intended to blunt the bill. One of Dodd’s amendments would require the GAO to study the “Repo 105” accounting gimmick, a trick used by Lehman Brothers to cook its books and make it look healthier than it really was. Another study, by Corker, would require the GAO to study the government’s role in propping up the troubled housing twins, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a backstopping effort costing the government $125 billion.

But on the whole, as the banking committee begins tweaking and changing Dodd’s financial reform bill (which we’ll be covering here), keep an eye on any suggestions to replace mandatory rules or authority with “studies.” Those studies could be just another way for the bill’s opponents to punch holes in what’s currently a relatively tough piece of legislation. And if they succeed, the bill could emerge from committee looking more like a piece of Swiss cheese than a Wall Street overhaul.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.