The debate over too-big-to-fail — including its costs, impacts and whether or not the issue still exists — has truly taken on a life of its own this year. Recently, a group of major trade associations representing large financial institutions took a swing at suggestions that big banks benefit from a huge subsidy taxpayer subsidy and should be broken up or made to pay for this market inequity.
The Financial Services Forum, Financial Services Roundtable, The Clearing House, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the American Bankers Association released a policy brief, arguing that any cost of funding advantage that large institutions formerly enjoyed dried up following the passage of Dodd-Frank.
“Two recent studies conclude that markets are now imposing a cost of funding premium on large banks of up to 35 basis points, the groups wrote in their March 11 brief. “Flawed arguments regarding subsidies to large banking companies are at best out of date, and their use to call for draconian structural limits on the financial industry is out of step with the diverse financial needs of the 21st century U.S. economy.”
The groups’ statements raised the ire of lawmakers on both side of the aisle who cited recent statements from Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the issues associated with prosecuting large firms as further evidence of the existence of too-big-to-fail.
“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute — if you do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6. “I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”
“Despite the claims made by the paid cheerleaders of the megabanks, too-big-to-fail is alive and well, and the banks receive taxpayer subsidies,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La. Vitter joined in an unlikely alliance with Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to push for heightened capital requirements for the biggest banks. The two are also working on legislation they said will further address the issue.
Some community bank supporters sense an opportunity to finally address what they believe is the root cause of many of the issues facing community institutions — from overregulation to a range of market iniquities. During the Independent Community Bankers of America Annual Convention and Techworld in Las Vegas, ICBA President Cam Fine identified hastening the end of too-big-to-fail as one of his group’s top priorities.
“Please think about the true genesis of the very difficult circumstances in which you must run your banks and resolve to do something about it,” Fine told attendees. “Resolve to end the disease of too-big-to-fail and all the troubles this financial disease has caused you and this industry.”
The ICBA said it would support legislative proposals that restricting banks to making loans and taking deposits while banning them from engaging in market making, brokerage and proprietary trading activities. The group also supported enhanced capital, leverage, liquidity and other standards for systemically important financial institutions.
Fine told reporters he was “really angered” by the policy brief released by the Financial Services Forum and other associations. He also said the effort to confront too-big-to-fail is gaining traction.
“I don’t think you will see anything happen this quarter or next quarter, but I think by late fall of this year and into early next year, you will perhaps have critical mass certainty in the Senate if not the House to advance some sort of measure that attempts to deal in a more concrete way and a more demonstrable way with a too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail,” he said.
Related Articles:
Investors acknowledging Dodd-Frank’s impact on too-big-to-fail, trade groups say
Fed chief calls for ‘broad inventory’ of regulations impacting community banks