Ellison introduces bill to break up ‘too big to fail’ banks
Monday, May 03, 2010 at 9:01 am
Rep. Keith Ellison is sponsoring a bill that would break up banks deemed too big to fail. The Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Efficient Banking Act of 2010 would set the limits on the size of deposit holdings that a bank can have.
Ellison and several Democratic House colleagues sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday asking for support and pointing out that 63 percent of the gross domestic product is held by just six large financial institutions.
“The gigantic size of megabanks, and the perception in the marketplace that they are indeed too big for the government ever to permit them to fail, gives them a competitive advantage over smaller financial institutions that distorts the market and discourages competition,” wrote Ellison, along with Reps. Brad Miller of North Carolina, Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Steve Cohen of Tennessee. “The lack of competition in the banking industry, in turn, leads to ever-higher levels of risk in the system.”
The bill would restrict any bank from having more than 10 percent of the nation’s total insured deposits. It would also cap a bank’s liability to 2 percent of the national gross domestic product and establish a 6-percent equity minimum for bank holding companies.
“The six largest U.S. banks today have total assets estimated to be in excess of 63 percent of our national GDP,” wrote the House members. “The gigantic size of megabanks, and the perception in the marketplace that they are indeed too big for the government ever to permit them to fail, gives them a competitive advantage over smaller financial institutions that distorts the market and discourages competition. The lack of competition in the banking industry, in turn, leads to ever-higher levels of risk in the system.”
Here’s the full text of the letter:
Dear Colleague:
We’re writing to invite you to join us as cosponsors of legislation to restrict the leverage and size of the very largest banks and financial institutions in the United States.
The resolution powers in the financial regulatory reform bill that passed the House last year represent critical first-steps in addressing the problem of risk-taking by institutions that are “too big to fail.” But it has become increasingly clear that to make absolutely certain U.S. taxpayers are never again forced to rescue a giant financial institution, we must make sure that no market participant is so large that a failure would result in economic collapse.
The six largest U.S. banks today have total assets estimated to be in excess of 63 percent of our national GDP. The gigantic size of megabanks, and the perception in the marketplace that they are indeed too big for the government ever to permit them to fail, gives them a competitive advantage over smaller financial institutions that distorts the market and discourages competition. The lack of competition in the banking industry, in turn, leads to ever-higher levels of risk in the system.
There is no evidence that giant financial institutions perform any public service or market function that cannot be performed as well or better by smaller, and even substantially smaller, banks and financial institutions. To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that megabanks distort the market and impose substantial risk to the public. Further, the unprecedented size of the largest banks gives them enormous political power, including the ability to thwart appropriate financial regulation. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich correctly observed in a recent column, “the only competitive advantage to being a giant bank headquartered on Wall Street is to have the economic and political clout to get bailed out by American taxpayers when the next crisis hits.”
The SAFE Banking Act of 2010 would limit the size of megabanks by prescribing statutory limits on deposits, non-depository liabilities, and leverage. These steps would require several of the largest banks to, in effect, break themselves up to come in under the limits that this law would create. Specifically, the bill would:
• Impose a strict 10 percent cap on any bank-holding-company’s share of the United States’ total insured deposits;
• Reduce the maximum amount of non-deposit liabilities at financial institutions (to two percent of United States GDP for banks, and three percent of GDP for non-bank institutions);
• Set into law a six-percent equity minimum for bank holding companies and selected nonbank financial institutions, ending the extreme leverage that puts at risk the solvency of the entire financial system.
For more information about the SAFE Banking Act, or to become a cosponsor, please contact [removed for privacy] in Rep. Miller’s office.
Sincerely,
Brad Miller
Ben Chandler
Keith Ellison
Steve Cohen
9 Comments
Comment posted May 3, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
Wouldn’t it be better to just let the big banks fail? Instead of bailing them out let the bankruptcy court divvy up the carcass amongst stronger more efficient banks. Non-failing bank managers know far more about the industry than politicians.
And, don’t make it attractive (or even mandatory) to give loans to people that will not pay them back.
Comment posted May 3, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
Jimmy, ever considered running for office? Opining’s one thing, doing something, another.
Comment posted May 3, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
Opining is doing something, isn’t it?
I wonder if many think that when a corporation goes bankrupt, they burn the place down. Usually in fact many or even most employees keep their jobs, debts are renegotiated, so debtors and stock holders lose the most; but they took the risk knowingly. Resources are assigned to other, healthy firms which likely implies a net gain for the economy.
Personal bankruptcy is a totally different animal, and people in such circumstances are usually worthy of empathy, IMO.
Comment posted May 4, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Jimmy, hte problem with just letting the big banks fail is they could take down the whole economy with them. Even enough small banks can do that, which is why the FDIC takes them into receivership and winds them down. The problem with the big banks is there’s no means of taking them over and breaking them up in an organized way. The options are collapse or bailout. We all should get behind the $50 billion winddown fund the banks will have to pay into in the financial reform bills. It’s basically an FDIC for big banks.
Comment posted May 4, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Bring back Glass Stegal. ‘Nuf said.
No bank should be allowed to play Russian roulette with their customers’ money. This “proposal” would merely keep too much of the GDP from going over the proverbial cliff that the derivatives market has proven to be. Our present system of fiat currency is so highly leveraged, something must be done to ensure banks are properly capitalized. Once that is done, make certain that the easy money temptations are removed from the savings landscape.
The $50 billion FDIC payments are required from ALL banks. The little fish are left to pony up to protect the “big guys.” Just as the taxpayers have done for big banks. Another means to eliminate competition under the guise of “consumer protection.”
Comment posted May 4, 2010 @ 8:09 pm
I don’t agree, Eric. I think the “world meltdown” scenario was simply the lie used by politicians and big bankers to fleece the taxpayers.
Let the market digest the losers that gambled and lost. It’s better at it than anyone else, including politicians.
Comment posted May 4, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
Yep, I can figure out the answer to everything just by sittin’ here an thinkin ’bout it, don’t need to stinkin’ economist or or expert or some goofy thing like that. Teabaggers unite!
Comment posted May 5, 2010 @ 9:55 am
The basis for all leftist sales pitches: Trust me, I’m an expert; this will be good for you.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







