LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein touches on the main issues raised by Obama's regulatory reform proposals. A thorough and independent analysis by a panel of seasoned regulators and independent experts would have done better, Pearlstein says. It would take more time, but the regulatory reforms need to be thorough, considering the damage that has been done to the financial system, and considering the opportunity to do something serious about this. It would have also shielded the administration from criticism if tough action was needed in some areas. Hearing all sides of the matters at hand, and weighing the pros and the cons on each issue is helpful, but there are gaps in this approach when some of the key actors like Geithner and Summers have worked too closely in the past with the financial firms that are being regulated, and may have a tendency and bias in that direction. The President's lack of expertise in these areas, and a desire to keep the regulatory hand as light as possible, and intense obying by financial firms, can tilt things away from serious regulatory reform. The danger is that the opportunity to fix things with major structural changes where necessary, and some tough actions where needed may be lost. Some of the obvious gaps are mentioned by Pearlstein. There is no measure to tackle the situation with the ratings agencies. There will be more transparency than before but complex derivative trading can take place prettty much like before. Credit default swaps will continue as before. If you set up acouncil of regulators, then why not bite the bullet and consolidate them into a single agency, asks Pearlstein? Banks will continue to have their proprietary trading desks, from where they ran up huge losses, these act like in-house hedge funds. Ultimately a lot depends on who is running these agencies, or the Fed, and what is the prevailing opinion about markets in the country. The prevailing opinion that the less regulation the better for free markets, and the lack of independent regulators, and poor appointments, had a lot to do with the capture of the regulatory agencies by the the firms they were supposed to regulate. And on this point the President is on safer ground, as he can ensure that he appoints tough regulators and create a new culture that puts regulation right where it should be, as a necessary ingredient for free markets, just like rules of the road. And in one area the President has created a new structure, a new agency with powers- this is where consumer protections are at stake- so that the abuses that took place with mortgages do not take place.