Bank Lawyer's Blog

Paying For The Great Wall: Let The Banks Do It

Customarily, you'd have to work harder than El Chapo's Narc-Anon sponsor to find common ground between me and the Golfer-in-Chief on any issue, but leave it to The Candidate with the Cockatoo Do to move that Sisyphean boulder up the slope and on to level ground. For all of you who've been wondering like me (and most other Americans, as well as many Mexicans) how The Orange Man plans to get Mexico to pay for The Great Wall along the Rio, he's made it clear: American financial institutions will carry his heavy water.

Under the proposal detailed on Trump’s campaign website, the Republican would rely on a section of the Patriot Act to effectively force banks and money transfer companies to determine whether a person trying to send money abroad is a legal resident of the U.S.

That section of the law was written to crack down on terrorist financing and requires banks and other financial institutions to verify the identities of people opening accounts and doing business with them.

Trump has vowed on his first day in office, he would expand that requirement to include wire transfers and require that no foreign person living in the U.S. can send money outside the country without first proving their legal status.

The businessman predicts that Mexico will agree to pay for a border wall within a matter of days to keep money flowing over the border. 

The Trump campaign has also floated increasing visa fees, cancelling visas, and establishing trade tariffs against Mexico as ways to pay for a border wall, but cutting off remittances is the centerpiece of his plan. 

Usually, the words "centerpiece" and "Trump" are used to refer to the living blonde-furred creature he wears on his cranium, the one that sometimes rears back on its hind legs and bays at the moon, Megan Kelly, or any other thing or person who displeases the the former lead singer for Devo. In this case, it refers to banks and other financial institutions, as well as other money transmitters like Western Union, doing what all federal government agencies otherwise responsible for keeping the word "legal" in "legal immigration" have failed to do since the 1930s: ferret out who's here legally and who is here on the down-low.

Naturally, banks are doing back-flips in anticipation of the expense and liability of that job, not to mention the back-breaking prospect of adding a ton or two to the already crushing compliance burden it will entail.

But banks and other financial companies say they do not want to get involved on the front lines in a contentious immigration battle, arguing there are questions about how effectively such a policy could be implemented.

“It should not be for the banking system to be the police or the immigration task force,” said one banking lobbyist. “I don’t think it should be left to banks to report that someone has come in to remit money to whatever country, and it may or may not be legal. That’s not our role.”

[...]

Banks contend that they do not have a method of establishing the legal status of a person in the U.S. A person can open an account or send money abroad simply by showing an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, which is given out by the government to people lacking a Social Security number, including people who are in the U.S. illegally.

The banking lobbyist said Trump’s proposal is not yet being taken seriously by the industry because it is still several steps away from even beginning to look like a reality.

I assume that same lobbyist a year ago scoffed at the notion that a bloviating clown prince like The Donald could ever beat a well-funded, well-connected, "heavyweight" like The Jebster for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. Underestimating this carnival barker is a common blind spot this election season. He's like a nightmare from which you can't wake up no matter how loudly you scream. Let's take him seriously, no matter how many knots that ties in your nether regions, and make sure that he understands that any banker, even those who live in Colorado and consume mass quantities of EdiPure Raspberry Jellies, who was thinking of holding their nose and voting for him are going to vote for the Wicked Witch of the Chappaqua, or otherwise "Go Green," "Libertarian," or even "Liberace," unless he drops this harebrained scheme to build The Great wall on the backs of America's banks. In fact, bankers could get some assistance in making this point from their MSB brethren, as The Change We Were Waiting For recently noted.

“The notion that we are going to track every Western Union bit of money that is being sent to Mexico, good luck with that,” Obama told reporters. 

I amaze myself when I say this, but "Right On, Mr. President."

As the linked article points out, there are so many ways to circumvent the money transmission barrier that Trump proposes that banks, despite the money and labor it would cost them, would be about as effective in stopping money flowing from Mexican illegal immigrants in the U.S back home to Mexico as the US Border Patrol is at keeping out undocumented immigrants in the first place. In other words, it wouldn't work.

Not that reality ever stopped a megalomaniac.

Rent Seeking "Reform"

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. responds to a New York Times editorial that claimed that President Obama has been frustrated throughout his two terms by the "political dysfunction" caused by a recalcitrant Republican-led Congress. In his response, Jenkins touches upon a subject near and dear to community bankers and, not coincidentally, to the author of this rag sheet.

If Mr. Obama was “deeply frustrated,” the reason was the American people’s lack of support for his agenda. And what the Times calls his regulatory strategy would better be described as unbridled rent seeking.

That’s the term economists use for exercising government power to create private gains for political purposes. Consider:

Mr. Obama’s bank policy dramatically consolidated the banking industry, which the government routinely sues for billions of dollars, with the proceeds partly distributed to Democratic activist groups.

His consumer-finance agency manufactured fake evidence of racism against wholesale auto lenders in order to facilitate a billion-dollar shakedown.

His airline policy, urged by labor unions, led to a major-carrier oligopoly, with rising fares and profits.

His FDA is seeking to extinguish small e-cigarette makers for the benefit of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma (whose smoking-cessation franchise is threatened by cheap and relatively safe electronic cigarettes).

His National Labor Relations Board, by undermining the power of independent franchisees, is working to cartelize the fast-food industry for the benefit of organized labor.

We could go on. Mr. Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisers complains about the increasing cartelization of the U.S. economy—as if this were not a natural output of regulation. In a much-noted Harvard Business Review piece this spring, James Bessen, an economist, lawyer and software entrepreneur, cites increased “political rent seeking” to explain the puzzle of rising corporate profits in the absence of job creation and economic growth.

The truth is, government playing neutral arbiter over the private economy doesn’t produce rents. A stable and predictable regulatory system produces only mingy or non-existent rents.

Jenkins' allegation that "rent seeking" regulatory "reform" that has resulted in thousands of pages of new regulations that burden banks big and small, as well as pushing the envelope on "disparate impact" and other theories designed to squeeze blood and money out of banks through regulatory enforcement actions, is leading to the "caterlization" of the U.S. economy in general and the U.S. banking system in particular, strikes a chord in many ears It's not the only reason for the consolidation of the banking business, but it's one of them, and a not insignificant one.

As to the ideologues who deny any regulatory burden exists, or if does exist, isn't having a negative effect on community banks (based, I assume, upon Vladimr Lenin's assertion that "A lie told often enough becomes the truth"), the House Financial Services Committee recently published a raft of contrary opinions from the folks on the firing line. Read 'em and weep.

As to where the community banking business, and the country in general, are headed, I have to agree with the conclusion of the CEO of a Mid-Western community bank, communicated to me in an email this weekend: "This doesn't end well."

No, it doesn't. Unless, of course, you're a rent seeker.

Countrywide: Closed For Good

Maybe it's the fact that in another six months or so, the regime change here in the Land of the Free will lead many of the the current crop of enforcers in D.C. out the revolving door and into the loving arms of Big Law, where those wet behind the ears begin the learning curve with 15 grand a month of pocket money. Maybe it's the fact that they knew all along that they were pushing the envelope and, when called on it, they simply shrugged, smiled, and said "Ya' got me!" Whatever the reason, the U.S. Justice Department appears to be throwing in the towel several years earlier than my initial expectation, as a result of the US Second Court of Appeals decision that squashed the Justice Department's fraud claims against Bank of America that arose out of the former Countrywide Mortgage's so-called "Hustle" subprime loan program.

According to The Wall Street Journal, this week, the Justice Department sent letters to various former officers of Countrywide, including the infamous Angelo Mozilo (aka "The Tan Man"), that told them that Justice would do some justice by not filing any civil law suits against them.

Government lawyers sent letters within the past week to Mr. Mozilo and other Countrywide executives advising that the investigations against them were closed, and thanking them for their cooperation, these people said.

“We are pleased to see this investigation concluded without any further claim against Mr. Mozilo,” said his lawyer David Siegel.

I'll bet they are pleased. Mr. Siegel was sufficiently courteous to refrain from thanking the Justice Department back for providing years of legal work for defense counsel that has now resulted in the close of the investigation without criminal charges or civil lawsuits being pursued. For litigation attorneys, this is called "stroking the long ball." And, as ESPN's Sport Center loved to tell us, "Chicks dig the long ball."

To the "Occupy [Insert Venue Here]" crowd, this latest outrage will be further proof that the system is rigged in favor of fat cats and the bureaucrats who stroke them. On the other hand, those of us with actual experience in this area saw this coming years ago. From a September 22, 2009 blog post that discussed the outlook for folks like Angelo ever doing the perp walk:

Unlike the last round, when the savings and loan industry went into a tailspin, proving that CEOs and other senior executives knew about and encouraged, much less actively participated in, the fraud is tougher to prove in connection with the subprime mortgage mess. I recall a number of instances involving failed Texas thrifts in the late 1980s where there was ample evidence that thrift owners and senior executives were swapping dead horses for dead cows, making stock loans to an owner of another thrift to purchase 100% of the stock in his own S&L in return for the borrower causing his S&L to purchase a bunch of participation interests in the lender's portfolio of exquisitely ripe carcasses known as acquisition and development loans (in which the lender funded 100% of the acquisition and developments costs AND all of the interest reserve, leaving the borrower with as much equity in the collateral as a US congressperson's integrity). This time around, the CEO's and Chairman's muddy paw prints aren't stamped all over the lender's records.

"The problem is finding the executives' fingerprints on the consumer files," said Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University. "Angelo Mozilo may have set the tone at Countrywide, but there is no way you're going to find his fingerprints on any of those mortgages."

Even Marg Helgenberger of CSI couldn't find enough CEO DNA in these files to make a case. I'd like to watch her try, though.

If you want to become completely bent out of shape about the relative lack of suffering inflicted on Wall Street and its cronies over their role in the meltdown, consider the fact that no one in Congress has had their wrists slapped, either. Barney Frank and Friend-of-Angelo Chris Dodd even managed to get their names emblazoned on a piece of "financial reform" legislation for all eternity, masking for future generations (who seem to have short memories in any event) the major roles those two actors played in the drama. When it comes to skating, it seems to me that most of the culprits had their blades finely honed.

Let's hope that the late British physician, Havelock Ellis, was wrong when he said “Every society has the criminals that it deserves.”

The Blame Game Is Still Being Played

In the spring of 2008, months before Lehman Brothers became the largest bankruptcy in US history and the world as we knew it went to hell in a hand basket, I wrote a post about a Wall Street Journal editorial by the former CEO of Nomura Capital, Ethan Penner, in which he decried the bailout culture and the lack of personal responsibility it both reflected and fostered in America.

And so we have the insidious modern trend to shirk responsibility and blame others for our missteps. This trend, this "victim mentality," is a path toward personal disaster.

Perhaps if the Fed had raised short-term rates more aggressively, the excesses of the bubble could have been avoided. Maybe regulators could have noticed that the criteria for achieving an AAA rating had weakened markedly and inserted themselves early on. Yes, we can hope that the government takes the appropriate steps to ensure that the regulatory system improves as a result of this crisis. However, we citizens also need to accept our share of the responsibility.

Homeowners must learn that there are risks to using a home as an ATM. Investors who borrowed to flip condos must learn the downside of such risk. Individuals who steered money from insured bank deposits into uninsured money market accounts to pick up 1% more yield – like the institutional investors who purchased complex securities with little due diligence – need to know that in an efficient market, extra yield means extra risk. Those who played the derivatives market, focusing more on computer-driven pricing models and less on managing counterparty risk, must pay for that oversight. And, much as it is impolitic to say, people who took money from lenders and signed without considering how they'd repay those loans must also be held accountable.

In one of this year's primary debates, Ron Paul said it is not the president's job to run the economy. I'd add that it is not the government's job either. It is each and every citizen's job to manage our own affairs, make our own decisions, bear the fruits or painful consequences and learn our lessons.

The free market is the essence of our society's strength and is rooted in the Lincolnian precepts of accountability and responsibility. When decisions are made and actions taken (or not taken), there are consequences. These consequences are models for us to learn from and serve to stimulate social growth and advancement.

Less than six months later, the collapse occurred, the big bailouts ensued, and as we all know, the lessons taught by the adverse consequences of poor decision making were not learned. At least the world economy didn't tip over into total depression, but eight years later, we still haven't fully recovered from the meltdown.

Last December, Michael Burry, a main character in the book and movie, "The Big Short," gave an interview to Jessica Pressler which was published in New York Magazine, in which he, too, bemoned the unlearned lessons of the events leading up to that collapse. When asked if the crash resulted in any "positive changes," he responded negatively.

Unfortunately, not many that I can see. The biggest hope I had was that we would enter a new era of personal responsibility. Instead, we doubled down on blaming others, and this is long-term tragic. Too, the crisis, incredibly, made the biggest banks bigger. And it made the Federal Reserve, an unelected body, even more powerful and therefore more relevant. The major reform legislation, Dodd-Frank, was named after two guys bought and sold by special interests, and one of them should be shouldering a good amount of blame for the crisis. Banks were forced, by the government, to save some of the worst lenders in the housing bubble, then the government turned around and pilloried the banks for the crimes of the companies they were forced to acquire. The zero interest-rate policy broke the social contract for generations of hardworking Americans who saved for retirement, only to find their savings are not nearly enough. And the interest the Federal Reserve pays on the excess reserves of lending institutions broke the money multiplier and handcuffed lending to small and midsized enterprises, where the majority of job creation and upward mobility in wages occurs. Government policies and regulations in the postcrisis era have aided the hollowing-out of middle America far more than anything the private sector has done. These changes even expanded the wealth gap by making asset owners richer at the expense of renters. Maybe there are some positive changes in there, but it seems I fail to see beyond the absurdity.

[...]

The postcrisis perception, at least in the media, appears to be one of Americans being held down by Wall Street, by big companies in the private sector, and by the wealthy. Capitalism is on trial. I see it a little differently. If a lender offers me free money, I do not have to take it. And if I take it, I better understand all the terms, because there is no such thing as free money. That is just basic personal responsibility and common sense. The enablers for this crisis were varied, and it starts not with the bank but with decisions by individuals to borrow to finance a better life, and that is one very loaded decision. This crisis was such a bona fide 100-year flood that the entire world is still trying to dig out of the mud seven years later. Yet so few took responsibility for having any part in it, and the reason is simple: All these people found others to blame, and to that extent, an unhelpful narrative was created. Whether it’s the one percent or hedge funds or Wall Street, I do not think society is well served by failing to encourage every last American to look within. This crisis truly took a village, and most of the villagers themselves are not without some personal responsibility for the circumstances in which they found themselves. We should be teaching our kids to be better citizens through personal responsibility, not by the example of blame.

Burry's another smart guy who condemns the consequences of a culture in which "personal responsibility" is a foreign concept. If the vitriol of this election season has emphasized anything to me, it's certain that most of us are no closer to looking in a mirror when it comes to assigning blame for the bad things that happen to us today than we were in late 2008. In fact, after eight years of non-governance, with Nanny State organs like the CFPB "all fired up and ready to go" with the task of finding others to blame for every single instance of inequality of condition, and with an apparent choice between (as Peggy Noonan put it) a criminal and a crazy man for the title of "Leader of the Free World," we appear to be farther down the road to perdition than we were in 2008, and with a heavy jackboot pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to the floor.

Not that I expect anyone to really give a rat's tukus about the foregoing, this being an election year in which every person seems to be polarized by the zeigeist. However, maybe we ought to be concerned by the prospect of "deja vu all over again." Ben Lane at Housing Wire pointed out this past week that during the first quarter of this year, Mr. Burry's hedge fund liquidated its portfolio of a number of big bank stocks. Lane states that "[t]ime will tell if Burry’s bet is proven right again." Although that's true, based on his track record, this should not allow anyone to sleep well at night. Unless, of course, you, too, are "going short."

[Edited to clean up typos and the brutal overuse of the verb "decry."]

Fourth Corner: Staying Power or Sampling The Product?

When last we checked in January on the trials and tribulations of Fourth Corner Credit Union, a state-chartered Colorado credit union formed to provide financial services to the marijuana industry, the credit union had been denied an injunction by a federal district court in Colorado to force the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City to grant the credit union a "master account." It needs that master account to gain access to the banking system. The district court judge ruled that the court was not going to compel the Fed to grant access to a credit union that would facilitate illegal money laundering under federal criminal laws (albeit an activity that is fine and dandy under Colorado law). The court also "hinted" that if it ever got to the merits of the issue of whether Colorado marijuana laws trumped federal marijuana laws, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution would lead the court to favor federal law.

On April 29th, the credit union appealed the district court's decision to the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. I have not reviewed the appellant's brief, so all I have to go on regarding the arguments to support the appeal thus far are the public statements of the credit union's spokesperson as reported in The Denver Post. Those statements don't fill me with an excess of hope that the credit union's appeal will be successful. The arguments seem to be:

• The Justice Department and FinCEN are "hypocritical" for issuing guidance that would lead banks to believe that they can successfully avoid prosecution under federal law if they follow the guidance without actually allowing them to do so.
• The government bureaucracy moves slowly, so drug money can't be laundered through the banking system and is, thus, "unsecured," and that "scares" the spokesperson.
• A decision was rendered by a Colorado district court judge that marijuana buds were covered under a general liability insurance policy, a decision that the court made clear involved solely state, not federal, law.
• The US Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit filed by the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma against the state of Colorado, a decision that was based solely on jurisdictional grounds, in that the alleged harm is being caused by individuals, not by a state, and, therefore, the SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma can refile the case in federal district court.

There may be fine legal arguments made by the credit union that support its contention that the Fed must issue it a master account. If so, they are not making it into the main stream media. If all it's got is what I read in the newspaper, I'd recommend that the CU roll 'em if its got 'em, don't Bogart the joints, slap a few Cheech & Chong cd's in the boom box, and "get mellow," because the future is looking somewhat gloomy in the real world.

Then again, come November, we have absolutely no idea what kind of wild card the electorate might draw for the Oval Office. We might actually get a president and Congress that will take the Thai Stick by the lit end and burn down the barriers to a full monty of a Mary Jane-friendly society. Or, those of us who haven't rolled a joint in nearly a half century might be compelled to nestle down in the high country with a M249 SAW, a bale of concertina wire, a half-dozen claymores, plenty of bottled water and Tostitos, and several pounds of Ghost Train Haze and Blue Dream. And yes, unlike our former president and future first man, in such circumstances, we would plan to inhale.

Will PHH Clip The CFPB's Wings?

In a recent hearing before a federal appeals court, some of the justices appeared to be sympathetic to arguments by mortgage giant PHH Mortgage that the CFPB is unconstitutional. In Forbes, Susan Dudley, Director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center and a former White House official in the "W" administration, explores the arguments in favor of knocking the CFPB off its high horse and finds that they might have traction. She cites the following critical passage from PHH's brief:

The Director is not answerable to the President, as he is removable only for cause. Nor is Congress able to rein in the Director using its power over the purse, as he has the sole power to fund his agency from the Federal Reserve System’s operating expenses, and Congress is prohibited from reviewing the Director’s budget determinations. The Director is not checked by the deliberative decision-making process of a multi-member commission structure, nor is he checked by a short tenure, as he serves a fixed five-year term. And far from a limited scope of power, the Director wields vast authority under eighteen statutes previously enforced by seven different agencies. Never before has so much power been accumulated in the hands of one individual so thoroughly shielded from democratic accountability. The combination of these unprecedented structural features violates the separation of powers.

As Dudley correctly observes, the CFPB is unique. Other federal regulatory bodies are either executive branch agencies or independent commissions. In either case, they are subject to executive and/or legislative control directly or through an oversight body composed of members selected by the president and confirmed by Congress. Most are also subject to control through the appropriations process, giving another body control of the purse strings.

The CFPB is controlled not by a commission, but by a single director (currently, King Richard Cordray, Champion of Jeopardy) who is subject to removal by the president only "for cause." Other agency heads can be removed for wearing a tie with an offensive motif. calling the First Lady "Babe," or for an infinite variety of spurious reasons. Moreover, the CFPB's budget cannot be controlled by Congress. The FRB, is required to fund it by law, and Congress has no oversight.

This lack of checks and balances has concerned us since the CFPB sprang from the nether regions of Lizzie Warren, who deliberately concocted the Adjustment Bureau to be completely outside the control of anyone other than the reichsführer who runs it on any given day, which Warren originally intended be herself. The Director would be guided only by his or her knowledge of what was best for all consumers, applying truth, justice, and anti-abusiveness as Gaia gave him or her to see the light.

About six months ago, I attended a conference at which one of the panelists was a millennial former member of the CFPB's enforcement "arm" who recently rushed out the revolving D.C. door into a high-paying job with a banking law firm where he, naturally, advised those being persecuted prosecuted by the CFPB. In addition to possessing his generation's endearing narcissism and lack of respect for his elders, he scoffed, with a self-satisfied smirk, at concerns about the lack of controls over the CFPB because the Adjustment Bureau had been around for several years "and nothing horrible had occurred." One of the older panelists interjected one word: "Yet." I might have added: "Ask PHH."

As Dudley points out, even if the appeals court rules in favor of the petitioner, there are half-steps between nothing and abolishing the CFPB in its entirety as being an unconstitutionally created monster of Franken-Dodd. It could strike down the sole director structure; it could strike down the provision of Franken-Dodd that permits the president to fire the director only for cause; it could strike down the funding structure; it could do none of the above or all of the above. Whatever it decides, the decision is almost certainly to be appealed. By the time it reaches the SCOTUS, who knows what the composition of that august body might be, given the insanity that is the current season of "Election 2016"?

Nevertheless, Dudley asserts that "the future of something President Obama considers one of his main accomplishments is hanging in the balance."Here's hoping that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gives the CFPB a little nudge in the "right" direction.

Barney Bites Bernie (And Neel)

Now that hell has frozen over, I find that all kinds of amazing things are occurring, one of which has created the danger of ripping a huge hole in the space-time continuum: I find myself in agreement with Barney Frank.

While watching the PBS News Hour this past Thursday night, who should pop up but the former House Banking Committee Chair and favorite Bank Lawyers Blog Bullseye, Barney, who was interviewed by Jeffrey Brown about Frank's reaction to statements by Neel Kashkari, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and former Bush Bailout TARP Toolmaker, and the ever-cranky Bernie Sanders, Gen Y's favorite "Democratic Socialist," about "To Big To Fail Banks." Sanders also alleged that the way to break up big banks is to reimpose the Glass-Steagall on commercial banks. Frank, now that he's out of the political arena and no longer feels compelled to be what every politician feels he or she must be, i.e., a caster of shade upon of the truth, was remarkably critical of two gents who are spouting the Democrat Party line about the evils of Wall Street's "TBTF" banks.

Barney may have gained some objectivity, but he's lost none of the pungent-tongued arrows from his verbal quiver.

In the first place, both Senator Sanders and Mr. Kashkari continue to evade the biggest question. That is, how big is too big? The crisis which touched off when Lehman Brothers couldn’t make its payment, Lehman Brothers was about $650 billion in assets. We have banks four and five times that size

And the question is, does everybody have to be smaller than Lehman Brothers is today? But that would have consequences. Getting there would be a problem. By the way, it should be very clear, Glass-Steagall doesn’t do it. There is a disconnect between Senator Sanders insisting that the banks be broken down to the point where they won’t by their own size threaten, if they have too much debt, to undermine it.

And Glass-Steagall — Glass-Steagall would reduce — it wouldn’t do anything to Goldman Sachs and to Morgan Stanley, which are almost Glass-Steagall-ized themselves. But looked at Citicorp, or J.P. Morgan Chase, or Bank of America, Wells Fargo, even if they were subject to Glass-Steagall, they would still be well beyond the size that Lehman Brothers was.

There is just a disconnect between saying we’re going to do Glass-Steagall and getting the banks down to a size where, if there was a complete failure, you would get damaged by it.

The entire response above by Frank is remarkable for the fact that he's right. It's obvious that he's not been spending his time since retirement sampling the wares of Mar Jane-related "legal" businesses in Colorado.

Frank also jumped all over Kashkari's comparison of the 2008 meltdown to the S&L crisis of the 1980s, and Kashkari's statement that the reason the S&L crisis didn't bring the economy down was because none of the S&Ls was "too big to fail." Again, Frank asks why Kashkari won't tell us how big is too big? He also correctly notes that the bailout of the S&Ls cost a lot more than the bail out of big banks in 2008, although he does not also observe that this was because the 2008 TARP allowed the big banks to survive, while the S&L "bailout" allowed them to fail (or most of them, at any rate (outside the Southwest Plan thrifts), and established the Resolution Trust Corporation, staffed by the FDIC, to liquidate their assets. If the politicians, including Frank, had stayed out of it in the 1980s and let the initial bailout template concocted by the former Federal Savings and Loan Corporation play out, there's a chance that the money from that bailout might also have been largely repaid.

Frank says the primary risk is not size but "indebtedness," and on this point he's got a point. However, I disagree with his assertion that his bloated namesake, Dodd-Frank, has dealt successfully with the risk of bank's engaging in excessive borrowing and hinky derivatives that made "The Big Fail" such a hit (his misapprehension of the effect of the Volcker Rule has been lambasted previously), and his assertion that now, no bank is too big to fail. 

If a large institution can’t pay its debts, it fails. It is not too big to fail. It is put out of business, by law. No federal official can advance any money to pay its debts under the law until it is dissolved.

TARP also required legislation to create, and the wide-open authority it provided the federal government to bail out banks was induced by panic among folks at the highest levels of the federal government (including Frank) of immanent widespread economic collapse. We'll see how effective Franken-Dodd is when the next crisis hits, as it inevitably will. There's no prohibition on a future panicked Congress changing the rules on the spur of the moment to do what Frank claims can never again be done.

To prove that I haven't completely turned to the dark side, I think his statements about overturning Citizens United are bunk. Nevertheless, all-in-all, startlingly, he makes a lot of sense.

False Promise

Former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac once called Franken Dodd "the worst piece of financial legislation in modern history" and blasted the law's "Durbin amendment," in particular, as "pure and simple, special-interest politics."

I think the Durbin amendment is really a terrible precedent," Isaac says. "It weakens the banking industry at a time when we need it strong, and the folks who supported the Durbin amendment should be ashamed of themselves."

The subsequent cap placed on interchange fees by the FRB in response to Turban Durbin's amendment caused many bankers and credit union executives, and their trade group representatives, to predict that the only result would be to fatten the pockets of retailers at the expense of both financial institutions and their customers. Over five years down the road, that dire prediction appears to have been spot on, according to a recent opinion piece in the American Banker by the CEOs of the ICBA, CUNA, and NAFCU (people who sometimes are at each others throats on bank vs. credit union issues).

The price controls lawmakers were able to impose on those providing electronic payment options have resulted in an $8 billion annual handout to retailers that they have not passed on to consumers. Five years after the Federal Reserve issued a rule to implement the amendment, retailers have kept most of this revenue — an estimated $32 billion — for themselves.

While Congress may have thought this legislation would provide a benefit to consumers, data from a survey of merchants contained in a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond study indicates that the amendment is simply not working as intended. The report found that "few merchants are found to reduce prices or debit restrictions as debit costs decrease." This just reinforces the argument that the Durbin amendment is essentially a merchant handout from Congress.

Consumer research echoes the reality that retailers are not passing on this revenue in the form of savings for customers. In September, Phoenix Marketing International conducted its fourth annual survey of nearly 2,000 consumers and found that the vast majority of shoppers have not experienced a price drop at the point of sale. In fact, in each of the 15 categories measured, at least 92% of shoppers reported that prices rose or stayed the same over the past year.

The authors further assert that the retailers' trade association claims of several years ago that retailers were passing along the savings to customers, and, more recently, that the fee reduction benefited banks and credit unions, as bald-faced lies.

A study released last week by the Credit Union National Association reported estimated reduced revenue of $1.1 billion for credit unions resulting from Dodd-Frank's regulatory costs, all of which the report attributed to the swipe fee provision. Real data in the form of costs of processing changes and declining fees since 2011 debunks claims that credit unions and small banks below $10 billion in assets are not feeling the pinch. Further, there has been a decline in the interchange rate since the price controls went into effect. It continues to remain around 4 or 5 cents below where it was pre-Durbin, according to a survey by the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.

The authors conclude that rather than trying to blow smoke up the nether regions of financial institutions and consumers, perhaps retailers' time would be better spent figuring out ways to pass along the savings on interchange fees to consumers. Don't believe that conclusion any more than you should the retailers' claims. What financial institutions really want is the repeal of the Durban amendment and the Fed's limit on interchange fees. That won't happen in 2016, but perhaps the next Pontifex Maximus of the Disunited States of America can spare a moment from building "the greatest border wall of all time, a wall that will make the Great Wall of China look like Tom Sawyer's picket fence" to promote some Republican-sponsored legislation to benefit community banks and credit unions for a change, instead of the Wal Marts and Home Depots of the world.

Yes, I know: and perhaps pigs will sprout wings.

Clinton Promises to Fly Beyond Dodd-Frank

Hillary Clinton, in trying to out-Warren Warren, is ensuring that many bankers, of whatever stripe, will have to take a moment to ponder what a Clinton presidency might mean for the entire banking business before pushing the lever for her in November 2016. Unlike many Republican candidates, who publicly promise to roll back Dodd-Frank's more onerous provisions (regardless of private intent), Hillary promises to take Dodd-Frank to places that even its most ardent supporters have only dreamed about.

But it’s not enough simply to protect the progress we have made," Clinton wrote. "As president, I would not only veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform, but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank."

On Clinton's wish list are the usual proposals to strengthen the Volcker Rule, reimpose Glass-Steagall, break up big banks, restrain "risky" derivative trading, put Jamie Dimon in thumb screws, and force Wall Street interns to entertain donors to the Clinton Foundation at various strip clubs, she gets into the ominous "bad bankers" proposals that threaten to turn a danger of "trickle down" of big-bank regulation onto community banks into a virtual Niagra Falls.

• Extend the statute of limitations for major financial crimes to 10 years
• Require financial firms to admit wrongdoing as part of settlements 
• Increase transparency about terms of settlement and fines actually paid to the government
• Penalize executives when their firm pays a fine

She also wants the SEC and CFTC to be "independently funded," just like the CFPB. That way, behavioral psychologist and utopian intellectuals can team up to remove any checks-and-balances on the social engineering agendas of the Progressives that Hillary is courting in her bid to grab the grass crown. As King Richard and his minions have been attempting to do with the CFPB.

Her desire to insert "strong regulators" into bank regulatory agencies also bodes ill for community banks. If you love the way that for the last eight years, bank regulators have second-guessed executive decision making on a continuous basis, used regulatory power to attempt to choke off bank access to legal but politically and/or "morally" disfavored businesses, and pushed the envelope of theories like "disparate impact" to find discrimination where no one has ever found it before in order to reward favored constituencies, you'll love another eight years under the current president's "logical successor." At least she's giving you a "heads up" and not hiding the ball. Don't say you weren't warned.

Now, if the opposing party could only nominate something other than the south end of a horse traveling north to run against her. If they can find one, that is.

The Lesser Of Two Evils

In a fascinating bit of humbuggery, the US House of Representatives decided last week not to follow the lead of the US Senate and, instead, chose to screw the Federal Reserve rather than the banks who are members of the Federal Reserve System. Of course, both houses of Congress are robbing Peter to pay Paul, his cousin Guido, and their extended family back in Sicily, but that's beside the point. The point is that bank-bashing took a back seat to the realization that next year is an election year, and pissing off bankers might have to take a back seat to fundraising needs until after the first week of November 2016.

Nobody likes the Fed (except when it bails out the world), so messing with that august entity is usually fine and dandy, politically speaking.

The New York Times lays it all out for us.

The banking industry scored a surprise victory on Thursday when the House voted to pay for part of a new highway bill by draining a rainy-day fund at the Federal Reserve rather than cutting federal payments to some of the nation’s largest banks.

The Senate, scrounging for road-building money, voted earlier this year to reduce the Federal Reserve’s annual dividend payments to large commercial banks, saving about $17.1 billion over the next decade. The House was to follow suit, but after loud protests from the big banks, its final version of the highway bill preserves those dividends and instead requires the Fed to provide $59.5 billion over 10 years instead of putting the money into an account intended to cover potential losses.

Now congressional negotiators must decide which to hit, the Fed or the banks.

The Times notes the ultimate injustice of either alternative funding source: funds for highways are supposed to come from the gasoline tax. Naturally, politicians don't want to pass a tax raise that would enrage supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson (which covers the political spectrum from coast-to-coast). Moreover, banks are (almost) lower than lawyers in the mind of the average mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging voter, and bending banks over the back of the sofa isn't generally a risky play. So, whether it's the Fed or its member banks that pay the unjust price of this latest boondoggle, the banking system will pay a price.

If the banks pay the price by being shortchanged, considerably, on dividend income from the Fed, that will hurt their bottom lines. Moreover, Fed Chair Janet Yellen is probably correct in her warning that the Fed will lose members. On the other hand, if the Fed is the direct loser, its surplus will take a hit, which is not something that is in the interest of the financial system. The article points out that the surplus is in addition to capital the Fed raises by selling shares and it may not be needed to bail out the Fed if it goes negative over the next few years as it unwinds the stimulus. It also observes that Congress has tapped the surplus in the past. Setting aside the fact that just because you beat up an old lady and steal her Social Security check one month does not justify making it a habit, this would be the first time since the Fed was created that Congress would completely drain the surplus and prevent it from being refilled.

Other commenters, including some members of Congress, also think either choice is a loser.

"They’re both bad," said Aaron Klein, director of financial regulatory reform at the Bipartisan Policy Center, although he noted Congress has a history of tapping the Fed’s reserves.

Even the author of the House plan sounded apologetic. "This is not perfect policy, but it is much better than the alternative," Representative Randy Neugebauer, a Texas Republican, said on the House floor early Thursday. Mr. Neugebauer said he hoped that future transportation funding "comes from transportation users and not completely unrelated sectors of our economy."

When Porky sprouts wings, Randy.

One silver lining to this dark cloud is that it has upset Maxine ("The Socializer") Waters.

"How many of my colleagues or their constituents have a safe investment that pays this well?" Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, asked on the House floor Thursday morning. "Most of my constituents are lucky to earn a penny a month on their bank accounts."

The fact that the dividend rate paid by the Fed to its members has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriate source of funding for highway construction is beside the point to The Socializer. The money's there, banks are getting it, they're making a better return than me and my friends, the federal government wants the money, so what's the problem? Take it!

I can't wait for either Hillary Clinton or The Greatest Show On Earth (EVER!) to get into the White House in 2017 and set all this right.