The Best Regulator is the Market
Over at The Daily Beast, Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy looks at recent revelations of regulatory capture on Wall Street. A bank examiner from the New York Fed, Carmen Segarra, started asking questions at Goldman Sachs and quickly discovered what readers of public-choice economics have known for years: Regulators routinely serve the interests of the firms they're supposed to control in the name of the public interest. Writes de Rugy,
It is fair to ask what the point of a complex and burdensome regulatory system is if the rules are so easily ignored by the companies they are supposed to constrain. Isn't the main reason behind these rules that taxpayers' money is on the line—since the government has granted an implicit promise to bail out big companies in distress? But if the rules aren't doing their job, and the implicit bailout is encouraging firms to be reckless, aren't taxpayers left doubly exposed? If we can't control these financial institutions either way, it seems that the best regulation is the discipline imposed by the market. Companies that act badly should go under. This is how you get rid of bad actors, warn the future bad ones that there will be no bailout, and save us from the drama of finding out what a joke this pretense of oversight really is.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is now an Orderly Liquidation law since 2010 - no bailout. It is like bankruptcy without the bank run involved.
Actually, it's more like a guaranteed bailout (provided you are on the list).
The shareholders are wiped out and the bank is liquidated. Some bailout that is.
So they passed a law to do exactly what would happen without the law being passed?
No. A TBTF bank that fails would leave its deposits for the FDIC to pay. Dodd-Frank seizes the bank when its reserves fall below a safe threshold - and before a bailout is needed.
As a result banks have raised safety capital.
So no means yes.
People like you are why women get raped, shreek.
Why not just use bankruptcy law? Like any other business?
No. A TBTF bank that fails would leave its deposits for the FDIC to pay. Dodd-Frank seizes the bank when its reserves fall below a safe threshold - and before a bailout is needed.
So before they fuck you gently they fuck you aggressively?
You know who's surprised? Antonin Scalia....
" It is fair to ask what the point of a complex and burdensome regulatory system is if the rules are so easily ignored by the companies they are supposed to constrain."
Obviously what we need then is more rules, and a bigger budget. If only you teabaggers hadn't cut the budget and deregulated finance over the last six years everything would be fine, and the stock market would be stable.
ERAHGERD! SERKWERSTER!
The shareholders are wiped out and the bank is liquidated.
If "liquidated" means "handed over to a preferred gigantic crony on a silver platter, in order to make it even more gigantic and politically indebted".
No. That was pre Dodd-Frank.
Dodd-Frank seizes the bank when its reserves fall below a safe threshold - and before a bailout is needed.
The law which is still a "work in progress"? The one currently being hashed out between the regulators and their captors?
That one?
Some of it is being fought 24/7. Like the Volcker Rule.
That was pre Dodd-Frank.
Of course. What happens, now? A failed bank is nationalized? Turned over to its regional Fed overlord to be run by a bunch of interns with History degrees?