Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Felix Salmon has a good rundown of Chris Dodd’s proposed regulatory reforms, and overall he finds them considerably better than the proposals that came out of the Treasury.  But on one point he thinks Dodd has it wrong:

The Agency for Financial Stability is the agency charged with monitoring systemic risk — a job which under Treasury’s proposal would be given to the Federal Reserve. On this I think I have sympathy with Treasury: the Fed in general, and the New York Fed in particular, is better placed to monitor these risks than a brand-new agency with no direct ability to supervise banks or to break them up. A giveaway appears on page 3 of the discussion draft:

“The Agency for Financial Stability will identify systemically important clearing, payments, and settlements systems to be regulated by the Federal Reserve.”

Clearly, the Fed is going to play a necessary role here, and it’s not exactly rocket science to identify key clearing and settlement systems. So why take that job from the Fed and give it to powerless technocrats in Washington?

I think I’ll take Dodd’s side here.  As Felix says, there’s no question that the Fed is going to have a major role here no matter what: it’s just too big and too central to the banking system not to.  But there are at least a couple of big reasons not to give it unfettered authority.  First, the Fed has demonstrated pretty conclusively over the past few years that it’s too close to the banking industry, and too invested in its success, to ever be objective about the broad level of risk in the banking system.  Second, pronouncements from the Fed are too powerful.  The Fed would (rightly) be very reluctant to make public statements about systemic risk for fear of sending markets into a tailspin.  So it wouldn’t.

The problem with Dodd’s Agency for Financial Stability, of course, is that it might end up with a fairly limited amount of substantive power.  But that’s not entirely a bad thing as long as it has reputational power.  Standing clearly outside the banking system would likely help it develop a reputation as an honest broker that demands attention — or, at very least, a counterweight to the institutional and industry-centric judgments of the Fed.  That’s no bad thing.

Overall, it’s a mixed bag.  On balance, though, I think there’s a strong need for a non-Fed voice, one that considers systemic risk to be its primary mission, not its 17th most important one.  Besides, look at the Fed’s track record on assessing systemic risk so far.  How much worse can a new agency be?  Might as well give it a try.

UPDATE: More detail on Dodd’s proposal here from Mike Konczal.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate