Thu, May 24, 2012, 9:12 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 18 mins.

Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    What’s the Volcker Rule Good For? ‘Absolutely Nothing’, Chris Whalen Says

    Follow Yahoo!'s The Daily Ticker on Facebook here!

    On Wednesday, a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee is slated to hold a hearing on the so-called Volcker Rule. Named after the former Fed chairman, the rule calls for banks to stop trading their own funds (a.k.a. proprietary or "prop" trading), and cease investing in private equity funds or hedge funds.

    In introducing the Volcker Rule two years ago this month, President Obama cited such as practices among "the excess and abuse that nearly brought down our financial system."

    Proponents of the rule, which is part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, believe prohibiting such behavior will stop banks from taking excessive risk and thus reduce the odds they'll need another taxpayer-funded bailout.

    But veteran bank analyst Chris Whalen has a very different view on the Volcker Rule, which he believes tackles a problem that doesn't really exist.

    "Why are we doing this now when we still haven't gotten the Congress to focus on where the problem was?," asks Whalen, senior managing director at Tangent Capital Partners and vice chair of Institutional Risk Analytics.

    Far more that prop trading, Whalen says the 2008 crisis was caused by the origination, sales and marketing of mortgage-backed and related securities, a.k.a. the syndicate desk, which was aided and abetted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, the lack of regulation on over-the-counter derivatives and abuse of leverage by financial firms were far bigger contributors to the crisis and resulting bailouts than were banks' prop trading desks, he says.

    "I'm not sure what it's meant to achieve," Whalen says of the Volcker Rule, chalking it up to the often mystifying process of making sausage…err, legislation in Washington.

    If the rule doesn't make the financial system any safer, Whalen says it has triggered the law of unintended consequences. Specifically, he says anticipation of the Volcker Rule has resulted in a loss of jobs, most notably at JPMorgan, and a loss of liquidity in the financial markets.

    After Occupy Wall Street, few tears are going to be shed for a bunch of out-of-work traders. Meanwhile, the Fed is working overtime to provide ample liquidity. Still, there's no arguing with Whalen's point that our elected officials and financial regulators have blown a golden opportunity to reform the system.

    Aaron Task is the host of The Daily Ticker. You can follow him on Twitter at @aarontask or email him at altask@yahoo.com

    Yahoo! Poll

    Will Congress get anything accomplished before the November elections?

    Loading...
    Poll Choice Options
    • Yes
    • No
     

    60 comments

    • JoeBagaDoughnuts  •  4 months ago
      When your bank or broker uses your funds to gamble in the market they are using your money to gamble against you! The deposit holder needs to be seperate from the trading desk. That is the point!
      • Langston Hughes 4 months ago
        They used to pay account holders interest to do that. Thanks to the government giving them money, we get the shaft now. Why pay us when they can just hit uncles sam up for an almost 0% interest loan?
      • JoeBagaDoughnuts 4 months ago
        MF Global is a good example of of why the broker should not also be playing the market themselves because there always the temptation to did into your funds.
      • NewEconomics 4 months ago
        Yes, bank deposit should be separate from gambling funds. This was the fix instituted after the Great Depression, worked like a charm till 1990s, when this separation was removed at the insistence of the banks. Then see how everything fell apart so quickly ...
    • Wade  •  Richardson, Texas  •  4 months ago
      The Volcker Rule was meant to replace the Glass-Steagall Act, which should have never been repealed. It prohibited commercial banks, with deposits guaranteed by the FDIC, to collaborate with brokerage firms and investment banks. If banks want to speculate, they should not have deposits guaranteed by the taxpayers.
      • NewEconomics 4 months ago
        Agree, except I would add that businesses that speculate shouldn't be allowed to use the name 'bank',
      • Lead Apron Please 4 months ago
        Anyone who says they'll reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act --- Gets my vote!!
      • Odd Duck 4 months ago
        The Glass-Steagall Act was from the great depression and like Dodd-Frank addressed problems that didn't exist to divert attention from real problems cause by government.
    • A Yahoo! User  •  Las Vegas, Nevada  •  4 months ago
      Who could be surprised? During the S&L crisis of the 80's and 90's nearly 1000 perps were prosecuted. During this financial crisis, orders of magnitudes greater, no one was prosecuted because -NO LAWS WERE BROKEN- if that doesn't convince you that the criminal banks are in control of the US government nothing will. The criminal capitalist buy the politicians who make the laws...seems pretty clear to me that they would pass a weak bill for the banks.
    • Jerzy  •  4 months ago
      Fascist Yahoo article. Break up the PIGGISH MONOPOLY BANKS.
      2007-2008 was a direct consequence of the ending of the divide between commercial and investment banks. - Restore Glass Steagall There were economic collapses while it was on the books. .
    • ivantheterrible  •  New York, New York  •  4 months ago
      Fine, banks can "invest" in any hedge fund they want as long as they don't expect the taxpayer to backstop their bets. It should be stipulated that any bank that speculates in hedge funds won't be covered by FDIC. Then see how well these guys like the "free market"
      • NewEconomics 4 months ago
        Good with your suggestion - just don't call it a bank.
    • fixgvt  •  Boston, Massachusetts  •  4 months ago
      Banks are not set up to be casinos! They are set up to be boring, stable places to save and handle money.
      • MACH1513 4 months ago
        And what book of fairy tales do you read? Today, banks ARE casinos for high rollers who use our money to place bets. The only way to make investment banks "safe" is to cut off access to Wall Street money, that is, make them revert to the type of privately held partnerships that encourage prudence and discourage risk.
    • The White Tiger  •  Tampa, Florida  •  4 months ago
      Put a harness on GOLDMAN SACKS
      • Cougarlover28 4 months ago
        who?
      • MACH1513 4 months ago
        Batter-fry the giant vampire calamari.
      • Sisafitz 4 months ago
        Too late - they didn't let the sun set on TARP largesse they got ahold of: it left the country to never return. Offshore profits are staying offshore given the current regulatory [and monetary] environment.
    • Sir, I Exist  •  4 months ago
      if we actually let banks go bankrupt sure theres no need. but comrade whalen you seem to forgt we live in a country with a state run economy. bankers want best of both worlds. protected from losses and the ability to take unlimited risks with other peoples money. if we do bailouts next time (and we will), let the offenders go bankrupt, give the money to the next tier of banks and let them consume the losses. at least then we arent directly rewarding the losers
    • GodBlessAmerica  •  4 months ago
      Funny how dodd and frank helped get us in this mess now they are coming to supposedly save us with their rules and regualtion. Funny thing is they get away with this stuff.
    • Molecule Man  •  4 months ago
      if the V-rule does nothing for banks, why are they offended by it? unless of course it stifles their ability to create more swindling. that's one for the federal government who protects the people's interest.
    • Larry S  •  Des Moines, Iowa  •  4 months ago
      All this rule is intended to achieve is that no depositor money will be lost if the bets that banks take turn sour. What is wrong with that?
    • imgamekc  •  4 months ago
      Let me see .. little regulation almost total collapse on wall street caused by over leveraged bad products. Perhaps we need to consider the regulation a wise decision for the time being.
    • JFerristx  •  4 months ago
      If you were the bank, you were allowed to use other peoples money, diluting the risk of the investment. That corrupted the analysis of the investment, encouraging the bank to take excessive risk. If you were the depositor, you were exposed to that risk without any reward (even if the investment paid off, return went to the bank, not the depositor). Actually, not only were you exposed to the risk, you financed the investment after it failed twice: once as the depositor who lost capital returns from your original investment, then you lost money as the taxpayer who bailed out the bank.

      A problem that doesn't exist? This putz will never get my business.
    • A Yahoo! User  •  Las Vegas, Nevada  •  4 months ago
      Since one of the guys who sponsored the bill (Dodd) gets elected in part because of bank money, it doesn't surprise me that the rule is mostly smoke! A positive side effect of the Volcker rule is that it does focus the public's attention on the criminal capitalist banks (C, GS, JPM, MS, BAC) who have bilked the middle class out of a good proportion of their wealth the last 20 years.
    • bystander  •  4 months ago
      We still take suggestions from bankers after the last financial crash and no one was prosecuted? Its like asking a criminal on how to enforce the law..
    • Miguel  •  4 months ago
      I dont think the financial crisis and great recession was that bad and that we should not make any fixes to keep us from doing it all over again as soon as possible since it has been so much fun.
    • The White Tiger  •  Tampa, Florida  •  4 months ago
      AUDIT THE FED NOW...
    • JoeW  •  Los Angeles, California  •  4 months ago
      It's not that the banks can't make money from their core business, they just can't make 10 million dollars per employee.
    • Army Two  •  4 months ago
      ok people who writes the law or policy? as long as politicians (government) get bribes by lobbies and many others f... the rule of law and the constitution.....where are the so called conservatives of this country??? lol...
    • trish  •  Colorado Springs, Colorado  •  4 months ago
      Mortgage backed securities should not even be allowed. The reasons are obvious.

    FOLLOW THE DAILY TICKER

    The Daily Ticker covers the most important business stories of the day -- the economy, investing, corporate leadership and politics. The Daily Ticker picks up where Tech Ticker left off and is hosted by Aaron Task, Henry Blodget and Daniel Gross. Often serious, sometimes irreverent and always interesting, The Daily Ticker gives viewers a unique take on the business world's most crucial stories.

    Subscribe and RSS

    [X]

    How to subscribe

    Roll over each section to subscribe using Add to My Yahoo! or RSS Feed feeds.

    Yahoo! News offers dozens of RSS feeds you can read in My Yahoo! or using third-party RSS news reader software. Click here to find out more about RSS and how you can use it with Yahoo! News.
     
    Recent Quotes
    Symbol Price Change % Chg 
    Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
    You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
     
    Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.