The regulatory rumble begins

May 28th 2009 | BERLIN AND NEW YORK From The Economist print edition

In America and Europe, new rules are already running into stiff resistance—mostly from regulators themselves

Illustration by S. Kambayashi

When asked about financial regulation Tim Geithner , America’s treasury secretary explained recently. that the crisis is moving into a new phase, with the emphasis shifting from firefighting to working out how supervision should be restructured . He plans to unveil a comprehnsive regulatory overhaul by mid-June. Barack Obama has said he wants to sign the changes into law by the year’s end.

In Europe, too, the pressure is on. “There’s no room for more delays,” José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said on May 27th when he unveiled a blueprint for reform of financial supervision. He announced plans to form two new grandly named institutions: a European Systemic Risk Council, which is supposed to provide early warning of possible risks, and a European System of Financial Supervisors, which would be a super-committee of regulators from across the European Union.

The goals of the two new institutions are admirable. Both are intended to correct a fundamental flaw in European bank regulation and supervision; namely, that although banks are free to operate across borders, they are supervised only by their home countries. Slack oversight by one country can, as the crisis has revealed, spread chaos across many. Yet it is not at all clear that the proposals have been thought through properly.

In America, meanwhile, the plans taking shape face resistance, partly from the bankers they will shackle but even more from regulators and lawmakers. Bankers accept they will be forced to build up bigger capital buffers, which will crimp profitability, and that the liquidity of their balance-sheets will be policed more intensively. The regulatory net will be cast over the “shadow” banking network of hedge funds, money-market funds and the like, to which much financial activity gravitated during the boom.

As the crisis has deepened, American bankers have tempered their opposition to the idea of new rules that reduce the chances of another blow-up. “Would I accept regulation that slows innovation a bit and knocks three percentage points off my returns if it promised greater stability? Absolutely,” says the head of one large bank.

For some, more stringent regulation even has a silver lining. With tougher mortgage rules, banks will no longer have to lower their standards to compete with the industry’s unregulated parts. The survivors could also benefit from higher barriers to entry.

The stiffest resistance to change is coming not from Wall Street but from Washington, DC, where government officials, regulators and congressional leaders are locked in turf wars and ideological battles. “Opinion has splintered. Everyone is fighting everyone,” says Bert Ely, a consultant on regulatory issues.

Worse, there is no consensus on the proposed systemic-risk regulator, which would identify and act on emerging “macro-prudential” dangers. The administration wants the Fed to assume the role, but many in Congress oppose this.

No one doubts that the archaic, overlapping patchwork of agencies needs modernising, with regulation refocused on a firm’s activities rather than its legal form. Reportedly, the White House is considering rolling the four banking-supervision agencies into one, though the idea is still in flux.

EXPLAIN THE UNDERLINED WORDS BY PARAPHRASIS