Financial Regulation: Then and Now (Busting TBTF)

Like the internet, finance would benefit from redundancy, and competition, not just in the sense of distributed shareholdings (which is already the case) but viewpoints (which is not helped when directors merely “rubber stamp” CEO opinion, and Fed, Treasury, and other financial regulatory officials are always on loan from GS and the rest of Wall Street). Like minded-ness, if you will, is the issue here and "restraint of trade" the lever. TBTF engenders the myopia which leads men like Greenspan to argue, “nobody saw it coming.” Quite a few did, but they were, in a sense, crowded out of the market.

Simon Johnson and James Kwak of 13 Bankers and The Baseline Scenario, urge President Obama, in a recent Washington Post Op-Ed, to channel Teddy Roosevelt’s defiance of Wall Street, exemplified by the break-up of Northern Securities in 1904 in order to clean up the US financial system.

I agree with Johnson and Kwak’s call to arms, and am sure their views are far more nuanced than a space limited op-ed can relate, however, my examination of the Progressive period in US history, of which the chapter on US financial regulation is but a part, suggests that repetition of that period is most unlikely, and hopefully unnecessary. While there are many similarities between then and now, both the context and issues of concern are, in certain key respects, different.

The Federal Government during the Gilded Age bore little resemblance to that existing today. As a financial entity, in the main, the government collected customs’ duties, which were more than half its receipts, paid interest on the debt, the bulk of which was incurred during the Civil War, and fought the Native Americans and Spain (wars were much cheaper then, additional Army and Navy costs for the 1898 Spanish American War came to $190M).

The malefactors of great wealth, as the industrial and financial titans of the day were known, controlled commerce and finance. They mined iron and made steel, connected the nation via railroads, telegraphs and telephones, and controlled the banks. They set prices and controlled the supply of money, credit and raw materials, which gave them the power to “shake down” people and firms of which they didn’t approve, competitors and frauds alike.

Unlike today, the leading banks which emerged at the end of the Gilded Age weren’t Too Big To Fail, they were Too Solvent To Fail. They owned much of the US gold stock, then the basis of money, and were seemingly immune from the Panics which shook the rest of the nation every decade or so, more often than not, it was claimed, at their instigation.

I’m confident if JP Morgan were running the Fed, credit growth would have been restrained long ago.  There is some merit to having someone "own" an issue- unlike Greenspan, Geithner, Rubin et alios, who claim no responsibility.  Thus, some believe we need more regulatory officials rather than better ones.

When the government was running dangerously short of gold reserves, in 1895, they went to Wall Street for help- call it a reverse bail-out- and had the Treasury supply replenished. A very small group of unelected men, in effect, owned the government.

This small group of men directed the transformation of America from a disconnected agrarian to a connected soon to be industrial society- from the states united to the United States. In the process, however, they paved the ground for the Progressives to use the power, not of money, but of public opinion, via the ballot box, to usurp their control.

The government that almost died in 1895, was reborn in 1901, when the assassination, by an anarchist (love the irony), of President McKinley, made Teddy Roosevelt President.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Trust Busting kicked off a vigorous 20 year period for the new government. Progressives, who had pushed potentially transformative legislation through Congress from 1885-1900 finally had an executive willing to use it, and his big stick, for change. The Rough Rider took the de jure power of the Interstate Commerce and Sherman Anti-Trust legislation, which had hitherto been used against labor, and prepared to make it de facto, against big business.

The Federal Government, as we know it today, was born. It was a small child about to battle grown men. US Federal Government receipts totaled $670M in 1900 (JP Morgan bought the Carnegie Steel Company around that time for $487M). In 1904, Northern Securities, a railroad trust owned by JP Morgan, JD Rockefeller et alios, was ordered to break up. The precedent, after appeal, was set and many other trusts followed. In 1911, after more than a decade of court battles, the Supreme Court dissolved Standard Oil, making JD Rockefeller, according to some, the richest man in the world, in cash.

He and the other Titans got rich, but lost control of their businesses.  Like the Titans of Greek Mythology, they are, for good or ill, only going to appear once.

The child was growing quickly. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was created and the 16th Amendment, which made income taxes Constitutional, was ratified. Four years hence, the US entered World War I. At war’s end, the child had given way to the man. By 1920, receipts had grown to $23B. The Federal Government was now the biggest guy in town.

On one level, this growth of government is like that of Gilded Age business-built on the destruction of competition. There are, however, two key differences: 1) government didn’t “swallow” competitors, they dissolved them into smaller pieces, diluting their control 2) Gilded Age businesses were dynastic and decision-making was concentrated into few hands, government officials were (and are) popularly elected, operate within a system of checks and balances, and change more frequently.

The context in which Progressives operated was, as I’ve hopefully made clear, very different from today. The Federal Government then was, at least in a critical mass of minds, like a Deus ex machina, come to save the day. It didn’t tax the average citizen, but was likely to tax the wealthy and promised to not only break up the trusts, but also to open the credit spigot much wider.   One hundred years hence, the bloom is off the Federal Government's rose.  Increased taxation to fund another government expansion seems most unlikely.

Back then, the “money question”, as the debate between those who favored deflation or inflation was called, was one which brought people to the ballot box (I can’t imagine President Obama giving a Cross of Gold type speech). Elastic money seems to me the deciding factor which cemented Woodrow Wilson’s support of the Fed’s take-over of financial regulation.

Before turning to the present period, a few words about the Fed’s creation. There were two competing visions for the proposed central banking system, the Aldrich plan, which kept bankers in control, but allowed banks, at their discretion, access to government created liquidity (thus the need, under either vision, for the government, as financial entity, to grow, via increased taxes), The Bryan plan wanted government totally in control of a Central Bank which regulated the banks, and, at its sole discretion, could also supply liquidity.

The creature, as some call it, which emerged, was a compromise: government top down control of some key board members, banker control of others, the controlling board would be in D.C., thus demoting NY bankers, banks had access to liquidity, but the national liquidity level was at the board’s discretion.

Fortunately, unlike Johnson and Kwak, I’ve had the luxury of virtually unlimited internet space to flesh out the history. Unfortunately, I’ve probably lost most readers in this exercise of pedantry.

For those few that remain, let’s soldier on.

A Progressive solution, for our era, would involve for the creation of an empowered, taxing, global government with its own central bank, empowered with regulating all banks. This is, in a sense, the Nietzsche solution, fight monsters by creating bigger monsters. The United Nations (which replaced the earlier League of Nations) could be seen, in a Progressive dream, as the US Federal Government during the Gilded Age, an institution that, under direction of charismatic individuals, should become the biggest monster on the block, and maintain world order.

In my view, such a solution would but buy time in the same way that, 100 years from the empowering of the US government, many of the old problems remain. Ideas and conviction, not power, seem to me the missing elements. Further, the newly empowered Federal Government of a century ago was battling individuals, not national governments with armies, which would be the objects to be brought under control of any world government. If national governments begin to collapse, or fail to restrain growth of their internal monsters, however, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this “solution” emerge.

Supporters of continued US sovereignty within our borders, and the big bankers themselves, who might win the battle against US regulation only to risk eventually losing the war to world regulators (as the NY banks won the battle against state regulator but lost the war to the Feds) should take note. Men like Rockefeller and Carnegie, who ultimately submitted to government restraint, financed legacy institutions like the Trilateral Commission and its ilk to lay the basis for these bigger monsters. For a preview, consider: The IMF and the EU are currently battling for control in Greece, which seems willing to trade sovereignty rather than restrain its appetites via default.

Today, as then, the issue of size is key in one sense. Our regulators were seduced by “economies of scale” arguments and allowed a few financial institutions to grow beyond the ability of an indebted government to restrain. The 1895 analog is striking and, in that sense, Johnson and Kwak’s call to channel Roosevelt seems right on the mark. Terms like charisma and force of personality are often used to explain Teddy Roosevelt’s ability to bend people, ostensibly possessed of more power, to his will.

In the event, it took more than Roosevelt’s charisma to beat Morgan and his crew (or his charisma, and fear of popular backlash, was such that he bent a critical mass of the Supreme Court, to his will). US vs. Northern Securities was decided 5-4, with Chief Justice Fuller and Justices White, Peckham and Holmes dissenting. From a financial perspective, David, in the form of the US Government, had slain Goliath, a Trust whose capitalization was almost 2/3 of US revenues.

The basis of the decision, which, after appeal, and modification, became unanimous, however, was not bigness, but restraint of trade, via the stifling of competition. As Justice Holmes wrote in his dissent, “Size has nothing to do with the matter.”

Justice Harlan, writing in the affirmative: The Government charges that, if the combination was held not to be in violation of the act of Congress, then all efforts of the National Government to preserve to the people the benefits of free competition among carriers engaged in interstate commerce will be wholly unavailing, and all transcontinental lines, indeed the entire railway systems of the country, may be absorbed, merged and consolidated, thus placing the public at the absolute mercy of the holding corporation.

Adding: it need not be shown that the combination, in fact, results or will result in a total suppression of trade or in a complete monopoly, but it is only essential to show that, by its necessary operation, it tends to restrain interstate or international trade or commerce or tends to create a monopoly in such trade or commerce and to deprive the public of the advantages that flow from free competition;

Having read both sides, I understand the dissenting view; until trade is restrained, monopoly, per se, isn’t a crime, and might even lead to reduced consumer costs. Should there always be at least two rail options for every possible route? I assume, however, that the objects sought by President Roosevelt were a precedent, and distributed control and profits, not a strict reading enforcement.

I dwell on the decision to suggest a legal challenge to the current concentration of financial control into very few hands. Contrary to the above, financial concentration has already restrained trade, and imposed additional costs to all. Financial support (and even the expectation thereof) of TBTF firms also restrains trade in that potential (and actual) competitors who avoided (or even profited by) the declines in certain asset markets were restrained in gaining increased market share. Surely one of the benefits of competition is the weeding out of the short-sighted.

Fortunately, I don’t think we need new legislation, we just need to enforce what’s already on the books.

Like the internet, finance would benefit from redundancy, and competition, not just in the sense of distributed shareholdings (which is already the case) but viewpoints (which is not helped when directors merely “rubber stamp” CEO opinion, and Fed, Treasury, and other financial regulatory officials are always on loan from GS and the rest of Wall Street). Like minded-ness, if you will, is the issue here. TBTF engenders the myopia which leads men like Greenspan to argue, “nobody saw it coming.” Quite a few did, but they were, in a sense, crowded out of the market.

The need for redundancy would become more apparent if we held as self-evident the belief that there is no magic cure for financial overextension (bubbles) and their dissolution (busts) in a fractional reserve banking system. It will happen, again and again. Mitigation, as should now be clear, is not just an issue of additional liquidity but also a financial industry comprised of smaller, and more numerous, competing firms. It might also help to examine the books of any firm (including the Fed) which promotes the notion that “this time is different.”

I hold no illusions about being the sharpest knife in the drawer, as the Brits say, and thus assume others have considered similar legal arguments against financial concentration. Given the obvious trade restraining effects of TBTF, why isn’t the Supreme Court hearing arguments?

Like the Federal Government in 1895, ours too needs a bail-out. While the big financial firms can no longer provide such support, they can keep the Feds afloat by selling bonds as Primary Dealers, and, if needed, increase their own holdings thereof (particularly after the Fed has graciously relieved them of toxic mortgage, et alia, assets). If the Federal Government is ever to restrain finance, they need to break this dependency, and prepare to take their lumps, so to write, for poor fiscal management. If they were crafty they would blame the firms they were about to break up…just a thought.

This will require either skillful diplomacy or a good deal of charisma from some in power, and a good deal of conviction that this problem cannot be fixed without radical solutions, and will only worsen if left to fester. The "break-up" strategy from the early trust busting days may well prove effective today, and increase the number of balance sheet managers in the bargain.  It will also, I suspect, require inflation ($ debasement) as a self-administered bail-out. President Obama might need to channel William Jennings Bryan, as well as Teddy Roosevelt to get the US out of this mess.

Perhaps President Obama can deliver a Cross of TBTF speech at the next Democratic convention.