It’s very tricky to design fixes that strike a balance between encouraging marketplace innovation and guarding against credit bubbles and busts that have surfaced with periodic regulatory. The job is made still more difficult by the strong lobbying clout of the the banking industry.
The risk is that, in the wake of extraordinary taxpayer-backed efforts to rescue banks and the economy, not enough will be done to keep America from getting into similar trouble down the road.
“We have not changed the financial regulatory framework in a substantive way so as to limit excessive risk taking,” Simon Johnson, a finance expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told a congressional hearing last month. “The proposals currently proceeding through Congress are unlikely to make a significant difference.”
He said the US economy retains significant strengths in entrepreneurship and innovation. But Mr. Johnson said that skewed incentives have allowed bankers to reap big profits for activities that may do little for the private sector overall. And when those activities become downright unprofitable – as at some big firms in the recent crisis – the losses are often carried primarily by taxpayers.
Sen. Dodd's key proposals
Here are key elements of Dodd's plan:
• Confront a “too big to fail” mentality among banks. The crisis showed that some institutions are so important to the system that regulators wouldn’t allow their collapse – due to worries about the ripple effects. The Senate plan, like the House plan, tries to create a middle ground in which giant firms could face a bankruptcy-style shutdown, but in a controlled way that doesn’t cause panic. And it establishes some incentives for banks not to get too large. It remains to be seen if this will work.