Today, he is emerging as one of the nation’s archreformers, pushing to impose some of the most stringent new financial regulations in history. And as the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the leading contender to oversee the complex derivatives contracts that played a central role in the financial crisis and, in turn, the Great Recession, he is in a position to influence the outcome.
It may seem an unlikely conversion, but it is one that has won the approval of Brooksley E. Born, of all people, a former outspoken head of the commission. She sounded alarms more than a decade ago about the dangers hiding in the poorly understood derivatives market and was silenced by the same Washington power brokers that counted Mr. Gensler as a member.
Mr. Gensler opposed Ms. Born, according to people who worked at the commission in the 1990s, and in 2000 played a significant role in shepherding through Congress deregulation measures that led to explosive growth of the over-the-counter derivatives market.
That was then. These days, Ms. Born is convinced of Mr. Gensler’s reformist zeal, as he takes on Wall Street in what is becoming one of the fiercest battles over regulation in the postcrisis era.
“I think he is doing very well,” she said in an interview. “He certainly seems to be committed to robust oversight of derivatives and limiting excessive speculation and leverage.”
The proposals championed by Mr. Gensler, if adopted by Congress, would substantially alter what is now a largely unregulated market in over-the-counter derivatives, financial instruments used by companies and investors to protect themselves and bet on moves in variables, like interest rates or currencies, and to speculate.
The proposals include forcing the big banks that sell derivatives to conduct their trades in the open on public exchanges and clear them through central clearinghouses, so that any investor can see the prices that dealers charge their customers. Today, those transactions are bilateral and private.
Group items tagged
LRB · Stephen Holmes · Free-Marketeering - 0 views
-
The anti-globalisation movement suffered a dizzying setback on 9/11. Symbolic gatecrashing into the well-guarded meeting places of the super-rich suddenly seemed a much more sinister activity than before. Busting up branches of Starbucks and other Seattle-style antics became anathema in an atmosphere of injured and vindictive patriotism. But Naomi Klein, the combative theorist and publicist of anti-globalisation, was not about to accept such guilt by association. Her reply, The Shock Doctrine, deals with the corporate acquisitiveness that she sees as ravaging the planet and reformulates the ideas of the anti-globalisation and anti-corporate movements for a post-9/11 world. Klein believes she has found the answer to a question that has perplexed many on the left: if every modern American government has been a tool of powerful business interests, what, if anything, makes the Bush administration uniquely odious? Her answer is that the Bush administration draws its political support not from America's corporate class generally, but rather from a particular part of it: 'the sprawling disaster capitalism complex'. She has in mind the companies that reap huge profits from catastrophes, both man-made and natural. They include defence contractors, arms dealers, high-tech security firms, the oil and gas sectors, construction companies, private healthcare firms and so on. Not exactly ambulance-chasers, they are driving the ambulances themselves - for a profit. For the most part, they capitalise on emergencies rather than deliberately bringing them about. But the distinction is not always so clear: the stock price of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defence contractor, almost tripled between 2003 and 2007 after a former vice president at the firm chaired a committee agitating for war with Iraq. The Iraq war was also 'the single most profitable event' in the history of Halliburton, whose former CEO, who still retains stock options, is Dick Cheney.
Clark Howard - Commentary on Headline News TV Show on clarkhoward.com - 0 views
-
US Fidelis did business as National Auto Warranty Services and Dealer Services in Wentzville, Missouri until they made this name change at the end of 2008. They are being investigated by the Missouri Attorney Generals Office for fraud; not to mention attorney general's offices in near 20 other states. Please also go to the Better Business Bureau to find that they have an F rating on their BBB report card. These salespeople are told to get the payment up front and they mail your contract later. Thus, thousands of people are giving their credit card, savings account, checking account, or debit card information making a down payment on the coverage before they even read the contract. What they are not told is that the contract only will cover the Blue Book value of the vehicle. If repairs exceed that, their contract is DONE. Your car can be up to 15 years old and have up to 200,000 miles on it. SURE!!! If it is only worth $2500 and your engine costs $3000 to be replace, I hope you have $500 to get it out of the shop. That is...if they even agree to fix it. PLEASE, get the word out. Stop the commercials. I know what I am talking about. I used to work there. They are ripping off thousands of unsuspecting people.
How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Sand? - 0 views
-
While we have the illusion of choice in our politics, the only real consistency in policy-making is Washington's commitment to war and oil, and increasingly often, war for oil. Libya was the oil dealer to Western Europe, but the market for oil is global. And oil is the prize, not democracy. This is …
Gary Gensler's Conversion to Financial Reformer - NYTimes.com - 0 views
-
For 18 years, Gary G. Gensler worked on Wall Street, striking merger deals at the venerable Goldman Sachs. Then in the late 1990s, he moved to the Treasury Department, joining a Washington establishment that celebrated the power of markets and fought off regulation at almost every turn.
-
Maybe he has "SEEN THE LIGHT" (had an almost "religious" conversion to the benefits of regulation). Then again, maybe his old employer (Goldman Sachs) - having become the "biggest and baddest" in the regulation-less free-for-all (including getting bailout funds through AIG for credit-default-swap "insurance" on derivatives) - wants to "cement" their position with regulation preventing any other party from doing what they did (and he is willing to help them in that regard)!?
-
Maybe he has "SEEN THE LIGHT" (had an almost "religious" conversion to the benefits of regulation). Then again, maybe his old employer (Goldman Sachs) - having become the "biggest and baddest" in the regulation-less free-for-all (including getting bailout funds through AIG for credit-default-swap "insurance" on derivatives) - wants to "cement" their position with regulation preventing any other party from doing what they did (and he is willing to help them in that regard)!?
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page