The House Financial Services Committee advanced a package of bills Tuesday that would weaken major regulations included in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, doing so over the objections of the Obama Administration with bipartisan support.

The legislative package, which has been criticized by both current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and his predecessor, consisted of six bills that would weaken the regulation of derivatives. Derivatives are the the financial instruments that were at the “center of the storm” that caused the financial crisis, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Nevertheless, those regulations have emerged as a key target for opponents of reform and the financial industry.

One of the most significant rules the package would weaken is the so-called “push-out” provision that would limit derivatives trading at banks and financial institutions that are insured by the federal government. But rather than weaken the push-out rules, Congress should be making them even stronger, former Federal Deposit Insurance Commission chair Sheila Bair told Bloomberg:

“If Congress wants to re-open Dodd-Frank on this question, if anything, they should push all derivatives activities (other than the banks’ own hedges) into affiliates outside of the insured bank,” Bair said in an e-mail. “This would force market funding of derivatives thus providing substantially greater market discipline than permitting them to be funded with insured deposits.”

Like the Volcker Rule, which would limit forms of risky trading at federally-insured banks, the push-out rule is meant to make the large institutions that were at the center of the financial crisis safer. But the Financial Services Committee, chaired by noted Dodd-Frank opponent Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), has repeatedly passed legislation weakening derivatives reforms since the law passed. At one point in 2012, there were nine separate pieces of legislation aimed at the regulation of derivatives pending in Congress. “These proposals threaten to create large oversight-free zones that could allow risky behaviors to flourish,” advocacy group Public Citizen wrote of such legislation in 2012.

The package of legislation isn’t expected to move forward in the Senate, according to Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), one of the sponsors. But Congress isn’t just taking aim at the rules: in recent years, it has gutted the budget for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the agency tasked with enforcing the new derivatives rules.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) Wednesday introduced legislation aimed at reining in “too big to fail” megabanks by imposing strict capital requirements and preventing them from structuring themselves to elude existing regulations.

The largest Wall Street banks are even bigger today than they were before the crisis, Brown noted in a floor speech in February when he renewed calls to break up large banks. In a new video explaining why he and Vitter introduced the legislation, Brown said the industry hasn’t learned its lesson from the crisis and that taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for banks’ risky practices again as they were when the financial system nearly collapsed in 2008:

BROWN: Did we learn our lesson after taxpayers had to bailout the megabanks in 2008? Well, since then, our banking industry has become even more — not less — consolidated. Ten large financial institutions merged into just four. These four behemoths are nearly $2 trillion dollars…larger than they were the last time we determined they were “too big to fail.” This growth didn’t come from innovative new products and services…it was built by the perception that these banks aren’t just backed by their investors, they’re also, unfortunately, backed by every American taxpayer.

Watch it:

The Brown-Vitter legislation would rein in banks by increasing capital standards — that is, the amount of money they have to keep on hand to manage the risk they take through investments and lending. The largest banks, those with more than $500 billion in assets, would be subject to a 15 percent capital requirement. That provision, which would apply to JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America, would force large banks to either hold more money to cover their risks or to reduce in size to avoid the capital requirements. Those standards are even stronger than the Basel III requirements sought by international regulators.

The legislation would also limit the taxpayer guarantee to traditional banking practices, leaving banks to rely on their own capital to insure the riskier practices in which they engage. That, Brown said, would prevent taxpayers from subsidizing the riskiest lending and trading practices that helped spark the financial crisis. “If megabanks want to be large and complex, that’s their choice,” Brown said. “But taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize their risk-taking.”

Financial firms that specialize in risky high-speed trading are boosting their lobbying efforts against proposals to rein in the practice, a Wall Street Journal analysis of lobbying records found. Three Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation that would institute a small tax, known as a financial transactions tax, on high-frequency trades, which reap major profits for firms but add volatility to financial markets.

In response, high-speed trading firms have more than doubled their lobbying efforts, the Journal found:

That follows a steep increase in registered lobbying by high-speed trading firms. Such spending averaged $2.3 million in 2011 and 2012, more than double the average from 2008 to 2010, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of data compiled by OpenSecrets.org, part of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Eleven European countries recently adopted a financial transactions tax; the United Kingdom already has a limited version of the tax that Labour Party lawmakers have looked into expanding. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) in February reintroduced their plan to levy a 0.03 percent tax, which they say will raise $352 billion over the next decade, on high-speed trades. Such taxes aim to curb the explosion in high-frequency trading that has only grown since the financial crisis, as this chart from market analyst Nanex shows:

The financial industry argues that such a tax would limit growth potential, but as DeFazio told ThinkProgress last year, the U.S. had a financial transactions tax after World War II when it experienced its greatest period of economic growth. Many business leaders support the tax, including high-speed trading’s pioneer, who said last year that the growth in that trading “has absolutely no social value.”

JP Morgan Chase accepted a “crisis management” award at an event Thursday night that rewarded the bank for the way it handled the London Whale trading crisis that cost the bank at least $6 billion. The trade set the financial world ablaze when the firm’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, announced it, considering JP Morgan had been the strongest megabank throughout the financial crisis and Dimon often bragged of its “fortress balance sheet.”

But the firm handled the crisis with flying colors, at least according to award presenters, the Wall Street Journal reports:

“J.P. Morgan Chase is winning for its handling of the $6.2 billion trading loss by the London Whale last year,” the event’s host, CNN anchor Ali Velshi, said. “I would say that’s what you call making lemonade out of lemons.”

Kathy Hu, an executive director in J.P. Morgan’s investor relations department, accepted the award and quipped: “Can I just say, ‘Crisis? What crisis?’”

The United States Senate took a slightly different view. In a bipartisan report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued last week, senators blasted the bank for misleading regulators and sidestepping regulations that should have banned the type of trades that kept the loss from occurring.

JP Morgan has been among the fiercest lobbyists against regulations like the Volcker Rule, which was meant to keep financial institutions that have the backing of taxpayers from engaging in risky forms of trading that result in large losses that could pose a risk to the overall economy. As U.S. News and World Report’s Pat Garofalo explained, this should have been a lesson in why the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and the rules it contains should be strengthened. Instead, it won JP Morgan an award.

During his nearly three years in the U.S. Senate, Scott Brown (R-MA) frequently came to the aid of the financial sector — watering down the Dodd-Frank bill and working to weaken it after its passage — and accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from the industry. Now, the man Forbes Magazine called one of “Wall Street’s Favorite Congressmen” will use those connections as counsel for Nixon Peabody, an international law and lobbying firm.

The Boston Globe noted Monday that while Brown himself will not be a lobbyist — Senators may not lobby their former colleagues for the first two years after leaving office, under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 — “he will be leaning heavily on his Washington contacts to drum up business for the firm.” The position will also allow him “to begin cashing in on his contacts with the financial services industry, which he helped oversee in the Senate.”

Among the lobbying clients represented by Nixon Peabody is Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street behemoth that reportedly skirted the Dodd-Frank rules . Brown received $10,000 in PAC contributions from Goldman and more than $100,000 in contributions from its employees.

Brown was also the deciding vote against the DISCLOSE Act, which would have allowed voters to see which moneyed interests were funding secret political ads. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which reportedly received millions from Goldman Sachs, led the opposition to the bill.

Last month, Brown joined Fox News Channel as a contributor. In his first appearance in that capacity, he lamented that Congress is “dysfunctional and extremely partisan,” and promised to “stay involved” by being “part of the election process back home and other elections throughout the country.”

Both Democrats and Republicans have raised criticism of the Justice Department’s leniency when it comes to the prosecution of Wall Street banks for their roles in the housing crisis and financial collapse that sparked the Great Recession. But today, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the very size of those banks is what inhibits prosecution, Bloomberg reports:

Criminal charges against a bank — something that could threaten its existence — may also endanger the national or global economies in the case of the largest ones, because of their size and interconnectedness. That has “made it difficult for us to prosecute” some of those institutions, Holder said today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“That is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large,” Holder told lawmakers. “It has an inhibiting impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate.”

The six largest Wall Street banks have grown exponentially in recent decades and now hold assets worth more than 60 percent of the American economy. But despite widespread fraud, discrimination, and other predatory acts during and after the recent crises, the banks have largely escaped prosecution, drawing the ire of both Democratic and Republican senators.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) renewed their calls to break up banks in Senate speeches last week, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) challenged regulators on the lack of prosecutions in a Banking Committee hearing in February. Brown and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) wrote a letter to the Justice Dept. alleging that banks have become “too big to jail,” and Grassley has criticized the banks for having a “get out of jail free” card.

Financial prosecutions reached a 20-year low in 2011, as regulators and the Justice Dept. chose instead to settle claims with large banks over mortgage and foreclosure fraud and other scandals. But those settlements have been rife with problems, as banks have found different ways to game the settlements to their advantage.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) took the Senate floor today to argue against Wall Street mega-banks that have been deemed “too big to fail” and thus receive the implicit backing of the federal government, arguing that lawmakers should act immediately to break up the big banks that now have assets worth more than three-fifths of the American economy.

Wall Street banks sparked the financial crisis in 2008 and were rescued by the federal government. Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act in 2010, but many of its rules have yet to take effect and banks are even bigger today than they were before the crisis. They are also just as scandalous, as financial institutions have faced lawsuits over mortgage and foreclosure fraud, money laundering, interest rate-rigging, and other practices. That, Brown said Thursday, should drive lawmakers to learn from past mistakes and break up the big banks to protect the health of the American economy:

BROWN: In the last five years alone we have seen faulty mortgage-related securities; foreclosure fraud; big losses from risky trading; money laundering; and Libor rate rigging. [...]

How many more scandals will it take before we acknowledge that we can’t rely on regulators to prevent subprime lending, dangerous derivatives, risky proprietary trading, and even fraud and manipulation?

Wall Street has been allowed to run wild for years. We simply cannot wait any longer for regulators to act. These institutions are too big to manage, they are too big to regulate, and they are surely still too big to fail.

Watch it:

Two decades ago, the six largest Wall Street banks held assets worth just 16 percent of the American economy, Brown said. They now hold assets worth more than 60 percent of the total economy:

Brown has emerged as a leading critic of Too Big To Fail in the Senate, and his efforts have attracted bipartisan support. Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) joined Brown’s call for action on the Senate floor today, and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) has ripped big banks for holding a “get out of jail free card” and, with Brown, has urged the Department of Justice to prosecute large banks for fraudulent practices.

London became one of the globe’s primary financial hubs partly through its so-called “light touch” regulatory approach — effectively trusting some of the world’s largest and most powerful banking enterprises to manage their own affairs without much government intervention. As a result, the U.K. central bank alternately ignored the burgeoning business of LIBOR-rigging and actively colluded in it at some level, advising banks to raise or lower their estimates in order to create an illusion of stability in the system.

For those not versed in the acronym-littered world of international lending, LIBOR stands for the “London Inter-Bank Offered Rate.” It represents the interest rate banks pay to borrow from each other for a short-term period in ten different currencies and 15 separate durations.

The strange bit comes in during the creation and publication of the rate — a survey of various banks’ estimates of the rate they think they would pay to borrow, for instance, 10 million yen for a one-week period. Those estimates are aggregated, the lowest and highest are knocked out, and the rest are averaged and published each day by the British Bankers’ Association, a private trade organization.

It wouldn’t take a financial mastermind to see how traders could abuse this system. The LIBOR represents a benchmark for derivatives and securities with a nominal value of $350 trillion or more. Skewing the rate by a single point could generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in paper profits, as Bloomberg News showed last week:

There were no rules at RBS and other banks prohibiting derivatives traders, who stood to benefit from where Libor was set, from submitting the rate — a flaw exploited by some traders to boost their bonuses.

The next morning, RBS said it would have to pay 0.97 percent to borrow in yen for three months, up from 0.94 percent the previous day. The Edinburgh-based bank was the only one of 16 surveyed to raise its submission that day, inflating that day’s rate by one-fifth of a basis point, or 0.002 percent. On a $50 billion portfolio of interest-rate swaps, RBS could have gained as much as $250,000.

Of course, it’s not as if the banks are getting away scot-free — Barclays Bank coughed up more than $400 million in fines last summer for its part in the scam, Swiss giant UBS paid over $1.5 billion to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, and RBS will probably pay close to $800 million in settlements, Reuters reports.

Read more

Our guest blogger is Daniel Pereira, Managing Editor at Brafton Inc.

Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit was pushed out the door of his company in October after overseeing a precipitous decline in his bank’s value. Overall, Citigroup lost nearly 90 percent of its stock price during Pandit’s tenure. But that won’t stop Pandit from walking off with $6.7 million for his last year on the job:

Citigroup said Friday that the former CEO, who resigned last month in a management shakeup, will receive an “incentive award” of $6.7 million for his work at the bank this year. Former president and chief operating officer John Havens, who stepped down along with Pandit, is getting $6.8 million, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The two men will also continue collecting deferred cash and stock compensation from last year, awards valued at $8.8 million for Pandit and $8.7 million for Havens.

The company suffered a profit loss of 88 percent during the third quarter, when Pandit supposedly earned his “incentive award.” During his time at Citi, Pandit made some $260 million in total compensation, even accounting for the year he took a $1 salary during the financial crisis.

Several Wall Street heavyweights have recently said that banks need to rethink the sky-high compensation they’ve been paying (which has helped exacerbate the nation’s income inequality). For instance, Morgan Stanley CEO called the financial industry “overpaid.” “There’s way too much capacity and compensation is way too high,” he said.