Although many have been targeted during the unbridled finger pointing that has been in vogue since the financial collapse, one group has been targeted more than any other: big banks. While the cause of the systemic failure of the housing market and global economy can certainly not be pinpointed to one—or even several—particular causes, the big banks have become the public’s punching bag. Undoubtedly the banks played a critical element in the collapse, but so did private investors, national governmental policies, and imprudent borrowing practices from those taking out loans. Although there are few people who are without blame in this equation, lawmakers and the public have naturally targeted those at the top of the food change.

The animosity towards big banks reached a breaking point this month when several of the nation’s biggest financial institutions announced that they would be doling out bonuses in record numbers. Many people feel that these banks, who received taxpayer money, should not be rewarding their employees in such as lucrative manner as the rest of the country continues to struggle. Although several of these institutions have already paid back the money that they borrowed, many of the earnings that these bonuses are based off of were recognized while they were indebted to the taxpayers.

Earlier this week President Obama announced a plan to place restrictions on banking practices and severely limit the scope of their trading. The new regulations, coined the “Volcker Rule” after former Chairman of the Fed Pail Volcker, would restrict banks from many of the high-risk investments and derivatives that fueled the current recession. Currently, banks are allowed to take deposits and trade on their clients behalf, as well as take part in proprietary trading for their own financial gain. Under the Volcker Rule, banks would not be able to do both, meaning that institutions would no longer be able to manage hedge funds and private equity funds if they also had deposits; this would serve to curb speculative investments.

For the initiative to take place, it first must be approved by Congress. Up to this point, garnering bipartisanship on any measure has been nearly impossible for the President, and it is unlikely that this issue will be any different. Despite the obvious hurdles, the President has expressed a resolve to enact meaningful financial reform.

‘”Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail,” President Obama said, adding “’if these folks (the banks) want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.”

The newly proposed Volcker Rule is reminiscent of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was the government’s response to the stock market crash in 1929 that led to the Great Depression. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited banks from partaking in brokerage or investment operations, essentially stopping them from having access to deposit money to for purchasing stock. Up until the late 20th century the Glass-Steagall Act was still in effect, but it was redacted in favor of promoting a freer market; it took less than ten years for history to repeat itself. While there are some differences between Glass-Steagall and the Volcker Rule, the goal is the same: prevent banks from dealing in non-traditional practices that lead to severe financial market crashes.

President Obama and national lawmakers aren’t the only ones looking to take the big banks down a peg or two. In recent weeks, there has been considerable media coverage over a push call from the editors of the Huffington Post for Americans to move their money from the “too-big-to-fail” banking institutions and put it into smaller, local banks that practice more prudent financial policies and are community-focused. One of the fundamental problems, they argue, is that large institutions receive government aid because of their size while small banks are allowed to go under because they are not seen as posing a systemic risk to the national or global economies. According to their theory, by taking money out of the big banks, Americans would be minimizing the clout that these banks carry and preventing a future crisis.

This idealist movement may seem appealing, but it is easier said than done. One of the reasons that major financial institutions attract so many customers is that, despite their fees and subpar customer service, there are several perks to a big bank. Many of these bigger banks offer online banking, lower international fees and greater access to ATMs than their smaller counterparts. Since the recent tsunami of bad press, some have redoubled their efforts and added new peripherals to their services to gain and retain customers. Despite the obvious hurdles, the people at the Huffington Post are confident that their populist movement will send a message to Wall Street and Washington that people are disenchanted with the current banking sytem.

Popularity: 1% [?]

View James Gelfer's Profile      Subscribe via RSS