Originally posted at Huffington Post
In Washington these days, not much is assured. Senate Republicans have ended their filibuster of financial reform, but this just allows debate on the bill to go to the Senate floor. There remains plenty of opportunity for opponents to make more mischief. Still, all signs point to a deal.
The conventional political theory behind getting a financial reform bill through Congress runs something like this. Backed by the Administration, Democrats have proposed changing the rules governing the financial sector which are opposed by the big banks and their allies but their influence is being offset given their contributing role in the Great Recession. Republicans in Congress, who have not wanted to see the President succeed in anything, are reticent about blocking legislation that can be billed as taking on Wall Street, especially as a fall election looms where they are anticipating significant gains. That’s a recipe for finding common ground on the political playing field.
But what’s in the bill? After all, the details surely must matter and will determine whether it is a deal worth taking. {I previously outlined five benchmarks for President Obama to consider before he signs on the dotted line}. What we do know is that the current regulatory regime did not include sufficient safeguards to prevent a near total collapse of the national economy nor protect households from being pushed into products they did not need nor understand. Risks of financial instability were exacerbated rather than contained. Priority number one for reform should not focus on finding a political compromise but making sure we don’t repeat the economic experience of the last few years. That is hardly a partisan position. And if we look closer at some of the major provisions of the bill under consideration, they also potentially create common ground on the policy landscape and point toward getting a bill done now that is not just politically wise, but moves the ball down the policy playing field as well.To be sure, financial reform is complicated and necessarily has many moving pieces. The Administration and their Congressional allies support creating a new risk regulator that would focus on the entire system rather than on stability of particular firms as well as a new watchdog agency that would look out for the interests of consumers who have been exposed to a rash of unfair and deceptive practices. Republicans are concerned with the expanded role of government, which they think would hamper the functioning of the marketplace and put taxpayers on the hook for bailing out bad actors. They claim to want a bill focused on Wall Street and not Main Street.
So, the question is do we need protection from Wall Street firms that are “too big to fail” or protection from the firms operating unsupervised on Main Street that are peddling high-cost and low-value products? I’d argue that we need both and there is an inherent connection between the two that should prove attractive to a bipartisan majority of Congress. Here’s why.
The financial services landscape has evolved in recent years so borrowers and lenders increasingly met in space that lacked public oversight. The non-bank, alternative financial sector grew into a $27 billion a year industry almost overnight. This includes the subprime mortgage market, the payday loan industry as well as car title loan shops, check cashing outlets, and pawn shops, which are often concentrated in poorer neighborhoods and used by people with lower-incomes and without mainstream bank accounts. The result is a bifurcated financial services system where families with fewer resources are steered toward higher-cost services in order to conduct basic financial transactions. The current regulatory regime is not designed to identify the risks to the everyday consumer because their eyes are trained on the safety and soundness of the banks, rather than households. This has produced a neglect of the nonbank sector, and the uneven standards between the two sectors eventually produced problems that spread to banks. No one was able to prevent the competitive pressure that allowed mad mortgage practices which grew in the nonbank subprime market from infecting the larger system. In fact, the securitized package of subprime mortgage derivatives was a poison pill which was sold across the globe.
When earning become dependent on practices that only thrive through a lack of transparency, regulators across the board have a harder time cracking down and ensuring there are sufficient level of capital holdings in the entire system. As a result, the fight over consumer protection is not a place to compromise, but it is essential for preventing the re-emergence of a financial meltdown.
Consumers should not have to accept different levels of protections depending on which entity provides their financial service or offers their product. Rectifying this actually pairs well with more effective oversight because it levels the playing field and ultimately protects the health of the entire system, lessening the probability of future bailouts. More consistent oversight and accountability standards for financial products should cut down on unfair and deceptive practices but also create a more predictable regulatory environment for all firms, which is a key ingredient for business success and should make the entire sector stronger.
The “no bailouts” refrain offers common cause to both the left and the right. Given the recent history, it is a slogan likely to be popular with a public that is no mood to hold the bankers and financiers harmless. More significantly, our best chance to achieve this goal is to establish a level playing field for a wide range of financial firms and create an independent and empowered watchdog looking out to protect consumers in a complex and changing financial marketplace. It is also why we should see a bill passed in the near future that will be consequential in both political and policy terms.