por admin » Mié May 26, 2010 10:42 pm
Parece que se iluminaron, el gobierno no incluira la separacion de las unidades de derivatives de los bancos, esto favorece a Goldman Sachs y otros bancos grandes dedicados a este negocio.
White House Signals It Won't Fight to Keep Rule on Derivatives
By DAMIAN PALETTA
WASHINGTON—A senior Treasury Department official on Wednesday said a controversial provision that could force banks to spin off their derivatives portfolio was not part of the "core" changes White House officials wanted in the financial overhaul, offering the second signal in two days that the provision could be stripped out.
But Treasury Department assistant secretary Michael Barr went out of his way not to disparage the amendment or say it should be killed. Rather, he said the provision's wording left it open to various interpretations that could have varying impacts on the financial system.
"It's a little bit hard to tell with certainty today how the provision would operate," Mr. Barr said of the provision, written by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.). "If it would result in a banking organization not being able to engage in swap transactions, the provision could have very significant consequences. If it has a narrower set of interpretations, those consequences would be smaller, and the language in the provision is somewhat unclear on that point."
On Tuesday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) said the provision "goes too far," and suggested it wasn't necessary for new financial rules.
Mr. Barr's statements came as lawmakers and administration officials began the process of trying to reconcile differences between the House and Senate financial overhaul bills, a process Democrats hope to complete by July 4.
In addition to trying to fend off efforts by bankers and business groups to change the bill, lawmakers and government officials will face the politically dicey process of jettisoning or modifying powerful lawmakers' pet provisions in the bill.
The stakes are high, as offending any single lawmaker could have consequences for final passage. The bills narrowly passed in each chamber of Congress, so losing just a handful of votes could derail the overhaul.
Administration officials showed less restraint when asked to weigh in on the practices of the financial community.
"We expect [lobbyists] to be crawling all over the Hill as they've been doing every day for the past year to be promoting scare tactics of all sorts of things that are not in the bill, or consequences that would not be rendered by the bill," Diana Farrell, deputy director of the White House National Economic Council said at the press conference.
Mr. Barr was asked repeatedly about the derivatives provision, and he mostly sidestepped every opportunity to define the White House's view on the matter.
He acknowledged it wasn't one of the "core" changes to derivatives rules the White House wanted, but he didn't say necessarily that the administration would fight to kill it. Core to the bill, from the White House's perspective, is that derivatives trading be done in a much more transparent way, with tighter regulation and more "anti-abuse" powers, Mr. Barr said.
"There are other provisions like the Lincoln provision that are not part of that core set of questions, and I think those are going to get worked through in conference," Mr. Barr said.
Bankers, regulators and others have said the provision could essentially force all derivatives operations out of banks and into hedge funds and other companies that face less regulation.
Lawmakers and administration officials face another difficult dance with a provision that would make it much harder for banks to charge retailers high fees for debit-card transactions. This provision was added to the Senate bill by one of the chamber's most powerful lawmakers, Dick Durbin (D., Ill.). It wasn't in the package of changes White House officials wanted, and Mr. Barr said, "we frankly have not developed a formal position" on it.
Similarly, Mr. Barr said the administration fully supported the gist of a controversial amendment added by Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) that would change the capital requirements for bank-holding companies. But he said the administration would push for what he called technical changes. The banking industry is pushing for fundamental changes to the provision, arguing that it could force scores of banks to raise large amounts of reserves.