Monday, March 25, 2019

On the Gravitational Pull of Clearinghouses in Congress after the Financial Crisis

Lest it be assumed that the Dodd-Frank financial-reform Act, which became law in 2010, two years after the financial crisis, would render it less probable that taxpayers would again be faced with having to bail-out financial institutions even without strings attached in order to keep the financial system intact and the American economy from collapsing, Gretchen Morgenson of The New York Times wrote two years after the Act's passage that “failing to confront the too-big-to-fail question is a serious oversight.”[1] For one thing, disproportionately increasing the amount of money that the biggest banks must hold against a rainy day once again neglects the possibility that every bank is having such a day on the same day and so none of the banks will loan to other banks (i.e., the commercial paper market). When a financial system itself is sick to the extent that it cannot stand, all the heavy dominoes may topple, one after another, even though each has more support. Secondly, widening the too-big-to-fail category enables more financial institutions to engage in risky bets because the expanded net could limit any eventual downside. Sure enough, Morgenson points out that the legislation “actually widened the federal safety net for big institutions. Under the law, eight more giants were granted the right to tap the Federal Reserve for funding when the next crisis hits.”[2] Those institutions, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Intercontinental Exchange, and the Options Clearing Corporation were even able to avoid the penalties for failure specified in the Act. The clearinghouses had successfully argued that even though only banks had been allowed to borrow from the Fed’s discount window, the clearinghouses are not financial institutions; rather, they are financial utilities. So, should they fail, they should not have to be “wound down” by regulators. This is essentially having it both ways and getting away with it. To explain this comfortable arrangement, we would need to look under the hood, so to speak, where I suspect we would find an exclusive world wherein vast private wealth is itself political power even apart from any attendant lobbying activity.
In 2011, the CME Group, the parent company of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, made almost $3.3 billion in revenue. Craig Donohue, the CEO, received $3.9 million in compensation and held an additional $10 million worth of equity outstanding. With this kind of money comes inherent influence, politically speaking. A very large concentration of wealth has a certain mass, by analogy, that bends space itself and thus has the force of gravity on other masses. This subtle force operates on legislators and regulators too, and thus complements both the influence of lobbying and campaign contributions. Even beyond the ability or wherewithal of great wealth to reward and punish, money talks; it is respected in itself. 
So great concentrations of wealth, like giant planets warping the space nearest to them, intrinsically warp a democratic system, which facilitates the natural tendency of great masses of wealth to attract even more. Hence after the financial crisis and the TARP and Fed infusions of cash, the five largest American banks were even bigger, and thus carried more systemic risk from the vantage-point of the financial system as a whole. In other words, it was even more likely that any of those banks, should it fail, could bring the system down. Additional reserve requirements seems like a paltry means of countering this natural law of great concentrations of wealth. Given their inherent and practiced influence, it should come as no surprise that they leverage the natural law by using even elected officials to bend the space appreciably more. 
It should be no surprise, according to Sheila Bair, the former head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that just when the managers at the clearinghouses “were drooling at the prospect of having access to loans from the Fed, top officials at the Treasury and the Fed, over the objections of the F.D.I.C.,” pushed Congress to allow the non-banks access to the Fed’s discount window as part of the Dodd-Frank Act even while saving the clearinghouses from being subject to the law’s “wind-down” requirements.[3] Approving members of Congress likely either saw the huge amount of clearinghouse wealth as impressive and thus eminently worthy of being tapped for political contributions or were already tapping. It is as the density of the wealth had a warm glow even though a cold winter. 
According to Morgenson at the time, the clearinghouses had "considerable clout in Washington. From the beginning of 2010 through [November 2012], the CME Group . . . spent $6 million on lobbying.”[4] Warping space even more by redesigning artificial contours is apparently not cheap. 
As though a rationale were needed, managers at CME argued that once their institution received Dodd-Frank’s designation of “systemically important,” the Fed “should provide access to emergency lending” and without strings.[5] Without strings! It would seem that a certain presumptuousness comes from prolonged exposure to the warped space near the immense concentrations of wealth. Not included in the Act’s penalties for failure, CME hardly deserved an “offsetting” benefit. The lack of symmetry alone is indicative of the sheer influence of great wealth. Would such wealth, as almost the entire wealth on the planet concentrated, be a black hole? No one could escape its pull! 
More realistically, when, according to Morgenson, “large and systemically important financial utilities that together trade and clear trillions of dollars in transactions appear to have won the daily double—access to federal money, without the accountability" in being wound down after failing—the rest of us can legitimately wonder how much of the Dodd-Frank Act can be relied on to protect the financial system and economy, and thus us, after the warping effect of the giant planets. Shouldn't they be pared down, given their sizable risk to the system? If so, democratic government would be less warped and thus more directly oriented to the public good. For if a government is thwarted in this role, who is going to look after our macro systems, whether they be economic, political, or societal in general? 



1. Gretchen Morgenson, “One Safety Net That Needs to Shrink,” The New York Times, November 3, 2012.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.