Outside the Box

Can Two Senators End “Too Big To Fail’?

May 20, 2013

I am often on a panel or at dinner with Barry Ritholtz (The Big Picture), and he will remark, "I am going to have to rethink my position – I agree with John, and that can't be right." While I don't share that bias, I do agree with Barry about his recent take on legislation – which might actually pass – that would deal with too-big-to-fail banks in the US. Barry's latest take on that issue is this week's Outside the Box.

I have not written all that much on the topic lately, other than to say that Dodd-Frank was designed by big banks for big banks – the best legislation they could buy, I have been very critical of allowing too-big-to-fail banks to put taxpayers at risk, and I don't think it should ever be allowed to happen again. Dodd-Frank did not deal with that.

There is bipartisan legislation making its way through Congress that is a huge step in the right direction. The Senate passed it 99-0. Barry explains it below. Both as a taxpayer and an investor, you should be paying attention. And as a voter, call or write your Representative and tell him or her to vote in favor. We will find out who is on the big banks' side on this one.

While I would go further in requiring even more capital for the larger regionals, this legislation will not only remove taxpayer risk but also give small banks a more even playing field, and they are the ones who fund small businesses, the engine of the economy. And I agree, it is a template for how bipartisan legislation can be passed without the usual rancor.

I am back from Tulsa, where my daughter Abbi's wedding came off beautifully. We were lucky in that the tornadoes that sadly have plagued Oklahoma this weekend avoided our area. My heart goes out to those whose lives were shattered by the violent weather.

I have been going to weddings for 40+ years, and they have become a good marker, at least for me, of how different the generations are, as weddings seem to do such a good job of reflecting the subculture in which they are conducted. It is not just the differences in dance styles – those change just to make sure they're different from what the previous generation did. That's what young people do: they try to put their own personal stamp on how they express their lives.

But one of the key differences I have begun to notice is how this 20-something generation communicates. I was sitting with Abbi and her bridesmaid prior to the wedding. She was in her gown and looking radiant, if a little anxious. But they were all on their cell phones, talking and sending pictures, texting and updating their Facebook accounts, checking to see who was coming to the wedding (as their friends updated their Facebook accounts) or sent texts. "[Someone] posted a picture of Abbi [insert expletives]." "Make sure that Stephen [the groom] does not check that Facebook account so he doesn't see the picture of Abbi [more expletives]. Don't they know he can see that account? They are 'friends' with each other!" In a world of constant online, they still adhered to the old standard of the groom not being allowed to see his bride on the day of the wedding – not even on Facebook!

In a sense, I can separate my children into pre- and post-cell-phone kids, and into a further grouping that grew up with smart phones. The youngest just does not understand a world where connection is not always possible (except when he conveniently doesn't want to talk to Dad). The older ones have quickly adapted. (And yes, I was one of the people taking pictures on my iPhone and iPad. I sometimes feel though as if I have willingly joined with the Borg.)

But communications has been affecting culture for centuries. Gutenberg, newspapers, radio, TV, the internet. They have all had a hand in shaping society. I wonder what a wedding will be like in 20 years, when Google Glass will be considered Stone Age technology by my grandchildren and their friends. How do we cope with a world in which it is possible to communicate with thousands of "friends" but our "wetware" (otherwise known as our brains) was evolved for nowhere close to that many relationships? I am sure the young will adapt, but their parents will be left to try and figure out how to update the latest version of whatever has replaced Facebook.

I want to mention that my friends at Casey Research are about to release a very important web event that will be of interest to anyone concerned about energy security in the US and Western world and the role that nuclear energy has to play. "The Myth of American Energy Independence" features guests with serious credentials: former US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, former SEC Commissioner and Chairman Emeritus of the UK Atomic Energy Authority Lady Barbara Judge, and former Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Herb Dhaliwal. 

You'll also have the benefit of in-depth analysis of investment potential in the nuclear and uranium sector from Rick Rule, Founder of the Sprott Global Companies, and Amir Adnani, President and CEO of Uranium Energy Corp., a dynamic presence in US uranium production.

I just previewed this event, and I found it fascinating as well as compelling from an investment perspective. Marin Katusa, Casey's Chief Energy Investment Strategist and host of the event, has lined up the sort of comprehensive analysis of the uranium opportunity that will give you the confidence to make your move. To tune in, go here to register, free of charge. The event will be released on Tuesday, May 21, at 2 pm EST and will be available for viewing any time thereafter.

Your still trying to surf the latest communications wave analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Like Outside the Box?

Then you'll love John's premium publication, Over My Shoulder. Each week, after sorting through vast amounts of economic, political, and investing news, John sends Over My Shoulder subscribers his pick of the week's most important commentary and data.

It's your opportunity to get the news John thinks matters most to your finances.

Learn More About Over My Shoulder


Can Two Senators End “Too Big To Fail’?

By Barry Ritholtz

Last month, an unlikely pair of senators – Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican – introduced a non-binding resolution calling for the end of the implicit subsidies that “too big to fail” (TBTF) banks enjoy.

The Senate voted 99-0 in support of the measure.

This month, they have pushed their ideas into actual legislation:…

Discuss This

9 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

hevigroswaite@gmail.com

Yesterday, 12:57 p.m.

Brilliant!

hevigroswaite@gmail.com

Yesterday, 12:56 p.m.

It’s about time some one brought some sense into the political arena. TBTF and TBTJ (eg. HSBC) are a blight on the USA’s reputation as a free society and an egalitarian regime. TBTF is basically the poor helping the rich become richer, and TBTJail is a grotesque joke on justice. How many people are in jail for using cocaine that HSBC profited from by “washing” the money.
HGW

Stephen Coates

Yesterday, 8:18 a.m.

With the word, “Fairness,” in the title, Obama should be all for it.

James Housel

Yesterday, 8:02 a.m.

I have to agree w/Willis. Anything that passes 99-0 is likely to be in the mothers and apple pie category. The day Congress votes to cut off their largest source of campaign cash…will be cold day in Hell.

gmgoff2004@yahoo.ca

Yesterday, 7:18 a.m.

As a Canadian observer,I have often felt that you have the best politicians that money can buy.Here,at least you have two honest men.As Winston Churchill said “Americans can be counted on to do the right thing,when all other choices have been exhausted”.If this bill is passed,it will make an enormous difference to the ethos of Wall St.George Goff

wadehufford@comcast.net

Yesterday, 5:42 a.m.

Simplicity and bi-partisanship—who could ask for more.  However, I agree with Willis Smith, voting on a non-binding resolution is not the same as supporting specific legislation and not allowing that legislation be amended to death with loopholes.  We can only hope.  The divide and conquer strategy with small banks and large banks may be just what the doctor ordered, but never underestimate the ability of K Street to delay and make complex that which should be done soon and simple.  Contact your Senator to express support.  And we need the media to publicize the details and expose those who would delay or water down this type of bill.

Willis Smith

Yesterday, 4:14 a.m.

The 99-0 vote on the non-binding resolution in the Senate was a free vote for those who want to be on record as concerned about the issue, but who will quickly vote against the specific legislation.  So they were for it before they were against it.  If you want to see this legislation enacted, you have to work hard on any member of Congress who represents you or your company.

Robin Day

Yesterday, 3:10 a.m.

Good luck with that. Gov’t, the Military Industrial Complex and the Wall Street big banks are an oligopoly. Free enterprise only exists on the fringes of the economy.

fsh@his.com

May 20, 6:56 p.m.

What effect would Brown-Vitter TBTF have on anti-redlining and other rules designed to accomplish “equal outcomes” in the home mortgage arena?  What happens when the government “forces” the big banks to make risky loans and actually incur the losses?  Will the banks then break up?