The Watering Hole

Politics
4 posts
U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy

By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01



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'll start. i think this is crossing the line, the slippery slope fallacy applies here. where do we stop? should we do this until the economy rights itself and then rescind all this power? the problem with this is the government isn't very good at giving up powers once assumed.
Problem with the article as worded. Government powers, government seizure, government taking control....pretty much bad news IMO.

I also think the government did the wrong thing concerning the aig bonuses. Seems they had a knee jerk reaction to Americans outrage over the bonuses. I'm sure most Americans didn't have a clue as to the details of these bonuses or to whom the bonuses were paid and why they were paid. Instead of explaining this event, they decided on a quick fix to calm Americans down. Most of the people who caused problems at AIG are gone now. The people who are left are trying to keep AIG alive.
chase — Mar 24, 2009i'll start. i think this is crossing the line, the slippery slope fallacy applies here. where do we stop? should we do this until the economy rights itself and then rescind all this power? the problem with this is the government isn't very good at giving up powers once assumed.

Personally, I think they should have seized AIG when they realized they had fucked everything last year.  If they had seized AIG and then done some sort of orderly bankruptcy, and paid out 30 or 40 cents on the dollar on all of their ridiculous credit default swaps, instead of letting AIG take our money and pay them out at the full rate, we'd be a lot fucking better off.  Screw the people who bought insurance on their credit defaults.  The fact was, they never OWNED anything... they just had a bunch of virtual money.  And when the jig was up, it should have been up for them as well.  

So, no, I support this move, and in fact, I think it's way late.