DVD Talk
U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Band of Brothers
Buy: $79.98 $44.49

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms


Venusian
03-24-09, 07:44 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.

The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.

"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.

The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.




I don't know enough about the financial sector to really understand what the difference would be here but I am weary of giving the Executive branch even more power. Congress is basically a rubber stamp already to the Executive. Do we really need more power in one branch?

OldDude
03-24-09, 09:13 AM
I don't know enough about the financial sector to really understand what the difference would be here but I am weary of giving the Executive branch even more power. Congress is basically a rubber stamp already to the Executive. Do we really need more power in one branch?

Oh, come on. Look how well unprecedented power has worked for national security -- warrantless wiretaps, locking people up without charges, Carnivore, etc. :)

CRM114
03-24-09, 09:29 AM
But evidently the private sector is just as inept - possibly more so - than government.

wendersfan
03-24-09, 09:35 AM
It's important we not let this crisis go to waste.

Dr Mabuse
03-24-09, 09:43 AM
Oh, come on. Look how well unprecedented power has worked for national security -- warrantless wiretaps, locking people up without charges, Carnivore, etc. :)

Carnivore? That was what it was called under Clinton when the program started, now it's called by the much more docile sounding name of DCS1000 as of ~2001.

That rename worked. The interest in the program dropped off a cliff with the rename, both in the press and on the internet.

Venusian
03-24-09, 09:57 AM
But evidently the private sector is just as inept - possibly more so - than government.

that is probably debatable, but even if that were the case, why give the power to the executive instead of a politically independent commission?

al_bundy
03-24-09, 10:00 AM
the only politically independent commission i can remember is BRAC, and people tried to lobby them as well

kvrdave
03-24-09, 10:20 AM
But evidently the private sector is just as inept - possibly more so - than government.

Perhaps the answer is to let the private sector print their own money. Seems to have worked well to keep the government from declaring bankruptcy.


What I am wondering is if this is done to "save" a company, why do you need to seize them? Wouldn't they willingly work work with the government to stay alive? That makes this seem a bit nefarious.

CRM114
03-24-09, 10:21 AM
What I am wondering is if this is done to "save" a company, why do you need to seize them? Wouldn't they willingly work work with the government to stay alive? That makes this seem a bit nefarious.

Absolutely not. There is already talk of some corps returning the TARP money because of the government meddling. You can't have it both ways. I believe the federal government pretty much has "seized" AIG anyway.

sracer
03-24-09, 10:51 AM
What I am wondering is if this is done to "save" a company, why do you need to seize them? Wouldn't they willingly work work with the government to stay alive?
Probably because if they didn't seize the company they wouldn't be able to "undo" outrageous compensation packages and contracts.

That makes this seem a bit nefarious.
Nefarious from one point of view, sure. It seems like socialistic elements are introduced into a capitalistic system where there is a moral failure... the ultimate root of which is greed. Look at the socialistic programs introduced over the last 100 years... at the root of it you'll see greed. (for example, generally speaking unions are a result of greed and exploitation by management/owners)

cpgator
03-24-09, 10:52 AM
But evidently the private sector is just as inept - possibly more so - than government.

:lol:

CRM114
03-24-09, 10:57 AM
You find the potential collapse of the world economy just a slight miscalculation? :lol:

classicman2
03-24-09, 11:05 AM
It's important we not let this crisis go to waste.


Hmm! Where have I heard that before? ;)

kvrdave
03-24-09, 11:07 AM
Absolutely not. There is already talk of some corps returning the TARP money because of the government meddling. You can't have it both ways. I believe the federal government pretty much has "seized" AIG anyway.

But if they are able to return it, that's good, isn't it? It shows that they didn't need it bad enough to begin with, right? That seems fine to me. Doesn't seem like we should say that if you want to return TARP funds we should be able to seize you if we think it is necessary.

The fed is a huge stakeholder in AIG now, and that's fine. They can vote their shares. Likewise Buffet has "seized" a lot of companies as well. But that is the way you do it.

wendersfan
03-24-09, 11:15 AM
Hmm! Where have I heard that before? ;)I am Rahm Emanuel's sock-puppet.

kvrdave
03-24-09, 11:15 AM
Probably because if they didn't seize the company they wouldn't be able to "undo" outrageous compensation packages and contracts.
Why should we be okay with government deciding what compensation is okay? Because they paid the money? Good argument. A better one is that the government ought to think through what they pass rather than realizing how stupid they are and try to patch things up after the fact. The bonuses are not a problem, they are a deflection. If AID had gotten $170,000 the bonuses amounted to $163. Great thing to bitch about, but it doesn't amount to jack shit.

Nefarious from one point of view, sure. It seems like socialistic elements are introduced into a capitalistic system where there is a moral failure... the ultimate root of which is greed. Look at the socialistic programs introduced over the last 100 years... at the root of it you'll see greed. (for example, generally speaking unions are a result of greed and exploitation by management/owners)


It is power than the government should not have. There are rules and regulations in place for what you are talking about. Regulate safety standards and regulate minimum wages, but stay out of business.

What was the biggest problem with Vietnam? It was political. This is all political as well, and will turn out as bad as Vietnam from a business standpoint. The government will not do this for what is best for business, they will do it for what will deflect attention from other mistakes and be popular during a spot poll. This is power that the government should not have.

In bailouts they have a reciprical agreement. They give money and if you want money you live by their rules. I'm fine with that because it is agreed upon. But they want the power to seize companies. Seize private property. That is wrong.

JasonF
03-24-09, 11:27 AM
I am Rahm Emanuel's sock-puppet.

If you were really Rahm Emanuel's sock puppet, you would have said

I am Rahm fucking Emanuel's fucking sock-puppet.

JasonF
03-24-09, 11:30 AM
It sounds like Secretary Geithner is seeking the authority to seize and unwind failed financial institutions just as we seize and unwind failed banks through FDIC. The problem is that the private sector has innovated in terms of what kinds of institutions can engage in what kinds of transactions faster than our regulatory regime has adapted to those innovations.

kvrdave
03-24-09, 11:35 AM
It sounds like Secretary Geithner is seeking the authority to seize and unwind failed financial institutions just as we seize and unwind failed banks through FDIC. The problem is that the private sector has innovated in terms of what kinds of institutions can engage in what kinds of transactions faster than our regulatory regime has adapted to those innovations.


Then if we have time to craft legislation to seize private property, don't we have time to update our regulatory regime?

I would think we would be better off putting restrictions on what an FDIC insured place can do. Chales Schwab has both a mortgage division and a stock brokerage. One is tied in with FDIC and one is not. I would rather see the government say that they must split and form 2 seperate corporations rather than give themselves the power to seize the entire organization.

Suprmallet
03-24-09, 09:16 PM
I'm--amazingly--with dave on this one. ;)

nemein
03-25-09, 05:51 AM
I think the first quote in my sig says it all...