Dow
     -133.39
12757.07
-1.03%
|
     -12.18
1339.77
-0.90%
|
     -132.13
13977.28
-0.94%
|
     -23.91
2903.32
-0.82%
|
     -1.04
53.26
-1.92%
|
     +1.09
116.27
+0.95%
|
     -0.00
2.00
-0.21%
January 21, 2010 7:50 PM

Obama Calls for Tougher Bank Regulation

(CBS/AP)  Last updated 6:35 p.m. ET

Embracing Depression-era policy and populist politics, a combative President Barack Obama chastised big Wall Street banks Thursday and urgently called for limits on their size and investments to stave off a new economic meltdown.

Investors responded by dumping bank stock.

Mr. Obama's rhetoric covered the whole financial industry, but the key changes will affect only a few high-profile players, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., while sparing investment banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The move could undercut Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's strategy of maintaining close ties with the financial industry as part of the administration's overhaul efforts.

"We have to get this done," Mr. Obama said at the White House. "If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have."

"We've come through a terrible crisis," the president said, pivoting the White House focus from health care to an economy that has been slow to recover during his first year in office. "The American people have paid a very high price. ... That's why we're going to rein in the excess and abuse that nearly brought down our financial system."

Markets tumbled on the news, the Dow Jones industrial average losing 213 points and continuing this week's slide that has erased the Dow's gains for 2010 and provided yet another dire sign for recovery.

Mr. Obama criticized big banks for not lending to small businesses even while doling out big bonuses and enjoying large profits.

Goldman Sachs said today it paid out more than $16 billion dollars in bonuses and compensation for 2009 - an average of nearly half a million dollars per employee, CBS News correspondent Anthony Mason reports. Morgan Stanley lost nearly a billion dollars last year, but will pay out more than $14 billion in bonuses and compensation.

"It's time to rein in the excess and abuse," the president said.

Mr. Obama's announcement included changes that have been advocated for over a year by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker - who appeared with the president at the White House - particularly by endorsing Volcker's proposal to ban banks that take deposits from also trading stocks for their own profit. The change would separate commercial banks from investment banks, a line that was blurred a decade ago by the repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act.

That won't help, suggested Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum, an industry group representing 18 of the largest financial companies.

"Proposals to preemptively break up large, well-managed and well-capitalized banking companies - or to reimpose Glass-Steagall restrictions - are based on a misdiagnosis of the causes of the financial crisis," he said.

Mason notes that critics said the president's proposal wasn't attacking the real source of the financial crisis.

"The institutions that created this are either gone or not covered by this law: AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac," said Frederick Lane of Lane, Berry & Co.

Neither the president's proposal, which would need congressional approval to take effect, nor his aggressive tone is likely to help the administration's case in working with Wall Street and finding support from banks that will need to boost lending to support an economic recovery.

Geithner has worked closely with bankers since coming into office, especially when designing proposals to overhaul financial regulation. Many banks have responded by supporting administration plans publicly and offering their assistance behind the scenes.

Thursday changed that.

Bank representatives usually give input on such issues and are briefed on decisions. But that apparently wasn't the case this week, though officials said the administration still values bankers' opinions.

Said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: "I'll let them decide where they come down on this proposal. I'll let them decide where they come down on whether taxpayers should be paid back for what they lend."

The administration also would change an existing cap that limits a bank from holding more than 10 percent of the deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. It was unclear how many banks the change would affect, but they would include Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc.

But not big banks. Investment banks Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley don't take consumer deposits. They became banking companies during the financial crisis, to gain access to discount loans from the Federal Reserve.

Now that the financial system has stabilized, there is nothing keeping them from becoming non-banks without changing their businesses.

Financial industry officials are especially frustrated by a proposed change they see as political and punitive without doing anything to prevent future crises. They say the changes would not have prevented the largest bank failures of the crisis.

American International Group Inc. was an insurance conglomerate, and did not have consumer deposits. Washington Mutual and Wachovia failed because of unsound lending, not speculation and for-profit trading.

Mr. Obama has tried to sell his financial changes in part by saying they would end the era of "too big to fail" and prevent future Wall Street bailouts. But Thursday's move highlighted an uncomfortable fact: The administration's proposed overhaul would provide government assistance for large, failing institutions.

Behind the public pronouncements, a gap is emerging between administration officials focusing on voters who are angry at banks and others such as Geithner who have courted them as partners in economic recovery.

White House officials acknowledged they did not give a heads-up before the announcement despite a private dinner Wednesday night with bank CEOs, Geithner and White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. That left bankers fuming in private and sharing annoyance in public.

An open fight with the banks might help Mr. Obama, which has called bankers "fat cats" and proposed a fee on large banks to cover shortfalls in Treasury's $700 billion financial rescue fund.

But it highlights the political costs of being represented by Geithner, who helped engineer the bailouts before Mr. Obama came into office.

Bankers helped elect Geithner to his last job: president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. They enjoyed cordial relations with him as the Obama administration rolled out its proposed overhaul of the financial system, but lately have questioned whether he truly speaks for the White House.


© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 139 Comments
by teaparty2010 January 22, 2010 5:26 AM EST
Huh?, better regulation in 2010, should this not have been taken care of in 08 when the whole thing crashed? Trust me, I have been in banking for 20 years, the problem is not in Regulation, it is in the Regulators.

CRA is the root here. Look it up.
Reply to this comment
by zippiez January 22, 2010 7:46 AM EST
Puh-lease don't hand out the free market crap. You know as well as anyone else that as soon as regulations are in place, the race is on to find all kinds of deceptions and ways around those regulations.
Oh, and what you want is more government? The talking heads at Feaux Snooze will roast you!
by stormerF2 January 22, 2010 8:45 AM EST
Clinton de-regulated the financial institutions so they could be pushed by congress into making bad mortgage loans to people who could not afford them,and nothing Obama has said addresses this.What happens when they move Overseas and keep operating? Business still needs to borrow big money from big Banks to expand and create jobs. Government intervention is not the way to run business.
by curse914 January 21, 2010 11:41 PM EST
by retm-w January 21, 2010 10:18 PM EST
misands

And that big corporation you work for will throw you out in the street in a heartbeat to save a nickle. You are just a number to them.

---------------------------------

by SoCalSuperSage January 21, 2010 11:07 PM EST
Maybe retm-w is just a number but we both know that an employee with your attitude is a valued partner in your company.. I own a business and you sir are always in demand.

Socialist are all loser as our current President is pointing out..

[][][][][][][][][]

He has not said anything that would make me want to hire him. Will he work for pennies and live at the factory? Maybe then I would consider employing him.
Reply to this comment
by curse914 January 21, 2010 11:37 PM EST
by Clemsson January 21, 2010 10:49 PM EST
The genesis of the bank crisis was a collapse of the HOUSING market, brought on DIRECTLY by Barney Frank and ACORN forcing banks to give out sub-prime loans to people that a retarded third grader should know would never pay it back. The AIG insurance schemes (insuring bundles of bad sub-prime mortgage loans) were but one chapter in that tragedy. Cause and effect.

[][][][[[][][][][][

Just shut up until you have numbers to counter mine.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod January 22, 2010 7:11 AM EST
curse,
The only number that counts is the total amount money that has been given to private institutions from our federal government. Freddie and Fanny are on the hook for over 800 Billion and counting with a blank check from our federal government to continue. The Federal Reserve (privately owned, just like Freddie & Fannie) will tell you anything and they refuse transparency and being audited by congress that should tell you something.

Please get your head out of the sand and covering for Freddie and Fanny.
by timesupreps January 22, 2010 10:00 AM EST
First of all, low income loans are not the cause of the total collapse of the housing market. Greed by middle and upper income people is. So do your homework. I am in the Real Estate market and business. I know some very high up people. The biggest issue was people of middle and upper incomes taking out loans for larger homes on sub-prime paper (ARMS) to get a bigger house that they really could not afford. But hey, they looked good and rich for a while to all their friends. Then the bills came due and more middle income 300,000-500,000 new construction communities found themselves empty and abandoned. Do not blame the poor for what the greedy middle and upper income did to themselves. LOOK in the mirror before you point fingers. There is the highest level of million dollar foreclosures EVER. Banks just wanted to boost their numbers to make the stocks higher and get bigger bonuses. That is what we need to prevent, them over inflating their value for bonuses. WAKE UP REPUBLICANS AND TAKE AN ECONOMICS COURSE> and by the way, the banks are not loaning to businesses. They took our money and kept it, that is why we are seeing a slow recovery and why the President is upset. Since they are not loaning (and I know this personally and through many friends who also own companies with great credit, but are still denied) they can use our money to once again over inflate their value and hand out bonuses. Seriously, how stupid are you people who are defending them saying they loan to businesses, THEY ARE NOT LOANING THE MONEY MORONS!!!!
by rightbehind January 21, 2010 11:23 PM EST
wallstreet = economic cannibalism
Reply to this comment
by stormerF2 January 22, 2010 8:31 AM EST
Anti Banks,who loan money to business to expand and provide jobs,So you are anti big business,where lots of jobs are created?...This still does not address the bad mortgages that congress pushed the banks to make loans on.
by independentmoderate January 21, 2010 10:52 PM EST
Bush-Cheney bailed out the banks first to the tune of over a trillion.
Their Supreme Republican Court just gave away democracy to the corporations. Paid for speech, unregulated, is NOT free speech. May this get overturned ASAP. There is no longer a democracy in this country. The Republicans first took their money toys and went home when the Democrats got in. That along with their padding the stock market on the lives of military men and women serving overseas for economic agression and stock market gain here at home, depleted our economy.,,bankrupted it. Most Democrats wimped out, tried to play pretty, and lost the first game of the series. It is time for a populace movement that outlaws and regulates corporations in every way., NO offshore or Swiss accounts, tariffs on products produced overseas, taxes on products produced overseas by US companies...and these funds go into our social security, medicare, unemployment, and workmen's comp programs. Instead, we pave the way for lazy arm-chair-investors to agressively play around all over the world and abuse our military who have to go in to clean up or prepare for their agression.
YES. Regulate these whining greedy immoral fools who think they can't live on their outrageous salaries.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod January 22, 2010 7:19 AM EST
independ,
First, TARP was passed by a Democrat House and Senate then President Bush signed into law, second it was for 700 Billion, of which Bush spent 350 Billion with leaving the rest to President Obama.

Our Supreme court said Free speech belongs to everyone, not just a certain group. Free speech should be unregulated, that is what real free speech is, not what you think it should be. GE and MSNBC has free speech, why not anyone else?

What you are proposing is a communist state and nothing more. You do not get to decide who makes what and whan, you do not have that right and neither does our government. You do not get to decide who can speak and who cannot, you do not have that right and neither does our government.

Profit is bad, bankruptcy is good??? Wake up before it too late.
by Clemsson January 21, 2010 10:49 PM EST
The genesis of the bank crisis was a collapse of the HOUSING market, brought on DIRECTLY by Barney Frank and ACORN forcing banks to give out sub-prime loans to people that a retarded third grader should know would never pay it back. The AIG insurance schemes (insuring bundles of bad sub-prime mortgage loans) were but one chapter in that tragedy. Cause and effect.

ACORN specifically threatened banks with demonstrations labeling them "racist" for the mythical practice of "redlining" loans.

Barney Frank called John McCain a racist when he tried to REGULATE Freddie Mac to stop the bad loans. Keep in mind Freddie Mac was Frank's BIGGEST campaign contributor.

Democrats caused this problem. Now they want to pin it on the banks and use it as an excuse to kick the feet out from under capitalism.

Obama is engaged in a full frontal attack on free market capitalism. Period. He needs to be impeached.
Reply to this comment
by teaparty2010 January 22, 2010 5:29 AM EST
You can only hide the truth for so long. The tide is turning and the MSM will soon report the truth. They go where the money is and that is not with the Democrats now. The internet is a wonderful tool.
by payasyougo January 21, 2010 10:18 PM EST
"Obama Calls for Tougher Bank Regulation"
-----

Sounds good. But then so did all of his campaign promises.
Reply to this comment
by misands January 21, 2010 10:12 PM EST
I proudly work for one of these corporations you loser libs complain about, but that corporation puts food on my table and a roof over my head. These libs need to be stopped before they destroy this great country.
Reply to this comment
by retm-w January 21, 2010 10:18 PM EST
misands

And that big corporation you work for will throw you out in the street in a heartbeat to save a nickle. You are just a number to them.
by sjc_1 January 23, 2010 6:18 PM EST
As you bow to and worship the Devil Corporations make sure you always remember the bargain. You give them everything your whole life and they will shove it right up there in the end.
by timesupreps January 21, 2010 9:36 PM EST
By the Way YOU GO OBAMA, STICK IT TOO THOSE SUNS A BI T CH ES> They deserve to loose their control of the system they destroyed. Big Banks and lenders almost took down this country in a big way and now they want to cry fowl when we the people want accountability for our money, and it is our money, not theirs. SO I HOPE OBAMA FINALLY DOES MEET A PROMISE AND SOAKS THOSE IDIOTS FOR EVERYTHING THEY ARE WORTH. BESIDES EVERYONE SHOULD PULL YOUR MONEY OUT OF STOCKS AND TELL WALL STREET TO TAKE A HIKE. WALL STREET IS JUST A BUNCH OF RICH GUYS LAUGHING AT YOU ALL FOR GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY TO GAMBLE WITH> WOULD YOU GO TO VEGAS AND HAND OVER YOUR MONEY TO THE HOUSE TO PLAY THE TABLES FOR YOU. THEY TAKE IT MANIPULATE THE NUMBERS (PONZI) AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ALL IS FINE WHILE THEY KEEP THE PROFITS CHARGE YOU A PERCENTAGE IF YOU DO MAKE ANY AND KEEP A WHOLE LOT OF IT. I DO NOT INVEST IN WALL STREET AND NEVER WELL. I INVEST IN MY COMPANY, EQUIPMENT, TRAINING AND SUSTAINING MY FAMILY FOR THE FUTURE, WHY WOULD I HAND THAT FUTURE OVER TO SOME RICH A$$ H-O-L-E.......WALL STREET IS JUST A GIANT VEGAS... THINK HOW MANY PEOPLE JUST LOST THEIR LIVES SAVINGS IN 2008, SOMEBODY ENDED UP WITH ALL THAT MONEY. COMPANIES WERE NOT DOING AS WELL AS WALL STREET WAS SAYING AND WHEN FINALLY THE VAIL CAME OFF, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC GOT SCREWED AND THE MONEY WAS ALL GONE- BUT TO WHERE?? SUDDENLY THE BANKS ARE MAKING BILLIONS IN PROFITS??? AND WE ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO COME AFTER THEM- PLEASE! BITE ME WALL STREET AND THE DEFENDERS OF THE RICH POSTING ON HERE AS REPUBLICANS..
Reply to this comment
by teaparty2010 January 22, 2010 5:30 AM EST
See you in the soup line pal. Stop shouting.
by stormerF2 January 22, 2010 8:40 AM EST
Where is you common sense? Big banks make loans to business who create jobs by expanding.Still this does not address the bad mortgages congress pushed the big banks to make loans for.Where are the Bridge Loan payback from the auto industry? At least the banks are working to pay us back.It is not up to government to cap business growth,and the stock market is reflecting it,They will all move overseas then what?
by curse914 January 21, 2010 9:13 PM EST
by nearl451 January 21, 2010 8:27 PM EST
This is much ado about little. the big news for Wall Street and for Big corporations is that because of a Supreme Court Decision today, there is no limit to the philisophy that whoever has the most money(has the most free speech) wins.

We have now transformed in 2 days from a phony threat of a Socialist State to a full Corporate State. Corporations now have control over all airwaves prior toan election, because they can buyout every outlet. There will be no more suits against any large Corporation, there will be no more bank regulations, there will be no more safety standards, there will be no more oversight. Any politician who disagrees will be drummed out.

And the Teabaggers were worried about liberals taking the People's voice. It is gone. Your voice is gone - and in the phony name of free speech.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Indeed, the Corporate State has overthrown our Democracy in a coup without a shot being fired. When only one voice is heard, that voice controls the narrative.
Reply to this comment
by jgg000101 January 21, 2010 9:41 PM EST
actually, it's unions like the SEIU and AFL-CIO, organizations like ACORN, and individuals like george soros who are taking it in the chops with this SCOTUS decision as their unfettered financial and political influence can now be offset by corporate donations.
by retm-w January 21, 2010 10:04 PM EST
jgg000101

Actually you are wrong the unions are limited to political donations, by their individual bylaws and PAC's. They cannot just spend the memberships dues on political contributions. Most unions PAC's recieve donations from the members seperate from dues. In other words they pass the hat.
See all 139 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook