When Obama was running for the presidency he campaigned on several issues, none of which are more imperative to the long-term prosperity of the American people than comprehensive financial reform. Yesterday, after months of rancorous debate, lobbying from the banking system and backroom deal making, the Senate approved the final version of the bill, which President Obama is expected to sign into law early next week. And unlike the health care reform bill, CNBC reports that over 70 percent of Americans know absolutely nothing about the financial reform legislation.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, as most people don’t have a firsthand interest in many of the bill’s provisions. Not to mention the fact that media coverage on the issue has been virtually nonexistent, which is probably because voters on both sides of the aisle wanted to see something done and there was little opportunity to cast the opposing side in an unfavorable light. Although business news outlets seem to be the only ones reporting on the legislation, the consequences of the new laws will affect all Americans and shape the future of our economy for years to come.

You would think that a far-reaching piece of legislation clocking in at over 2,300 pages would be rife with details, but that’s far from the case. Many of the main points in the financial reform bill were intentionally left ambiguous, giving regulators the freedom to establish the rules as they see fit. In the wake of the BP fiasco, where there is a mountain of evidence showing regulators and the oil industry in bed together—both literally and figuratively—I find it a bit worrisome that regulators are given such an immense amount of power in regulating the financial industry.

For example, the bill calls for the establishment of a council of regulators to monitor systemic risk in the financial system but doesn’t outline what to look for. They are given power to break up firms that pose an urgent threat, but “threat” isn’t clearly defined nor the institutions that are under the council’s jurisdiction. Call me crazy, but it seems like this opens the door for banks to negotiate lenient rules and lax enforcement.

Even though details pertaining to the new regulations remain scarce, banks are already mobilizing to subsidize for inevitable losses in revenue.  Since there are new limits on debit card feeds, several big banks have announced they will be raising fees on checking accounts to compensate. Most derivatives will now have to be traded on exchanges, so the investment branches of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are at work developing their derivative brokerage operations. And while the bill was supposed to prohibit proprietary trading by traditional banks, it appears as if traders will now simply create the façade of discreteness by making these trades with clients. Surprisingly, Wall Street executives have been quite candid when questioned on this issue.

“If you’re a restaurant and you can’t charge for the soda, you’re going to charge more for the burger,” said Jamie Dimon, CEO and chairman of JPMorgan Chase. “Over time, it will all be repriced into the business.”

Something definitely needed to be done to reform Wall Street but it’s hard to believe that this legislation will have the sweeping effect needed to avert another crisis. The banks are predicted to lose about 11 percent of their profits when the laws take effect, but thanks to the tactics describe above, they will quickly be able to produce astronomical revenues once again.

During the inquiry into the financial crisis, Dimon “eloquently” stated, “[A recession’s] the kind of thing that happens every 5-7 years.” Personally, I don’t think it has to be that way, but people across the board seem unwilling to take accountability for their actions, focusing on current revenues and disregarding the long-term health and viability of their business practices and the economy. So unfortunately, I think he’s going to be right.

Popularity: 1% [?]

View James Gelfer's Profile      Subscribe via RSS