1.
오바마 미국대통령이 칼을 빼들었습니다. 금융위기속에서 대마불사(Too big to fail)을 확인하였던 월가 투자은행과 전쟁을 선포했습니다.
(오바마 은행 대수술)①웃는 자 우는 자,골드만삭스 가장 큰 타격..일부 “손해 없다” 분석도
(오바마 은행 대수술)②법통과 가능할까?국면전환용 승부수..은행산업 망친다 반감도
(오바마 은행 대수술)③월가 “오바마 반기업적” 77%블룸버그 자체 조사, 자율성 침해 우려
영어공부도 할 겸 긴 연설문을 원문으로 보시죠.
Good morning, everybody. I just had a very productive meeting with two members of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board: Paul Volcker, who’s the former chair of the Federal Reserve Board; and Bill Donaldson, previously the head of the SEC. And I deeply appreciate the counsel of these two leaders and the board that they’ve offered as we have dealt with a broad array of very difficult economic challenges.
Over the past two years, more than seven million Americans have lost their jobs in the deepest recession our country has known in generations. Rarely does a day go by that I don’t hear from folks who are hurting. And every day, we are working to put our economy back on track and put America back to work. But even as we dig our way out of this deep hole, it’s important that we not lose sight of what led us into this mess in the first place.
This economic crisis began as a financial crisis, when banks and financial institutions took huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses. When the dust settled, and this binge of irresponsibility was over, several of the world’s oldest and largest financial institutions had collapsed, or were on the verge of doing so. Markets plummeted, credit dried up, and jobs were vanishing by the hundreds of thousands each month. We were on the precipice of a second Great Depression.
To avoid this calamity, the American people — who were already struggling in their own right — were forced to rescue financial firms facing crises largely of their own creation. And that rescue, undertaken by the previous administration, was deeply offensive but it was a necessary thing to do, and it succeeded in stabilizing the financial system and helping to avert that depression.
Since that time, over the past year, my administration has recovered most of what the federal government provided to banks. And last week, I proposed a fee to be paid by the largest financial firms in order to recover every last dime. But that’s not all we have to do. We have to enact common-sense reforms that will protect American taxpayers — and the American economy — from future crises as well.
For while the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse. These are rules that allowed firms to act contrary to the interests of customers; to conceal their exposure to debt through complex financial dealings; to benefit from taxpayer-insured deposits while making speculative investments; and to take on risks so vast that they posed threats to the entire system.
That’s why we are seeking reforms to protect consumers; we intend to close loopholes that allowed big financial firms to trade risky financial products like credit defaults swaps and other derivatives without oversight; to identify system-wide risks that could cause a meltdown; to strengthen capital and liquidity requirements to make the system more stable; and to ensure that the failure of any large firm does not take the entire economy down with it. Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is “too big to fail.”
Now, limits on the risks major financial firms can take are central to the reforms that I’ve proposed. They are central to the legislation that has passed the House under the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank, and that we’re working to pass in the Senate under the leadership of Chairman Chris Dodd. As part of these efforts, today I’m proposing two additional reforms that I believe will strengthen the financial system while preventing future crises.
First, we should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers. In recent years, too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments to reap a quick reward. And these firms have taken these risks while benefiting from special financial privileges that are reserved only for banks.
Our government provides deposit insurance and other safeguards and guarantees to firms that operate banks. We do so because a stable and reliable banking system promotes sustained growth, and because we learned how dangerous the failure of that system can be during the Great Depression.
But these privileges were not created to bestow banks operating hedge funds or private equity funds with an unfair advantage. When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide — which includes lower-cost capital — it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit. And that is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers’ interests.
The fact is, these kinds of trading operations can create enormous and costly risks, endangering the entire bank if things go wrong. We simply cannot accept a system in which hedge funds or private equity firms inside banks can place huge, risky bets that are subsidized by taxpayers and that could pose a conflict of interest. And we cannot accept a system in which shareholders make money on these operations if the bank wins but taxpayers foot the bill if the bank loses.
It’s for these reasons that I’m proposing a simple and common- sense reform, which we’re calling the “Volcker Rule” — after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that’s something they’re free to do. Indeed, doing so — responsibly — is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.
In addition, as part of our efforts to protect against future crises, I’m also proposing that we prevent the further consolidation of our financial system. There has long been a deposit cap in place to guard against too much risk being concentrated in a single bank. The same principle should apply to wider forms of funding employed by large financial institutions in today’s economy. The American people will not be served by a financial system that comprises just a few massive firms. That’s not good for consumers; it’s not good for the economy. And through this policy, that is an outcome we will avoid.
My message to members of Congress of both parties is that we have to get this done. And my message to leaders of the financial industry is to work with us, and not against us, on needed reforms. I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we’ve seen so far, in recent weeks, is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people.
So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices at some of the very firms fighting reform; and when I see soaring profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms claiming that they can’t lend more to small business, they can’t keep credit card rates low, they can’t pay a fee to refund taxpayers for the bailout without passing on the cost to shareholders or customers — that’s the claims they’re making. It’s exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform is necessary.
We’ve come through a terrible crisis. The American people have paid a very high price. We simply cannot return to business as usual. That’s why we’re going to ensure that Wall Street pays back the American people for the bailout. That’s why we’re going to rein in the excess and abuse that nearly brought down our financial system. That’s why we’re going to pass these reforms into law.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Obama’s Remarks on Banks’ Size and Trading Limits (Transcript)중에서
핵심적으로 오바마는 투자은행에서 하고 있는 proprietary trading을 적극 규제하고 상업은행과 투자은행을 분리하겠다고 합니다. 상업은행과 투자은행을 분리하려고 하는 배경에 대한 글을 아래를 참고하세요.
2.
이와 같은 정책이 의회를 통과할 지 불확실합니다.그렇다고 “We do God’s Work”라는 말 한마디로 여론에서 뭇매를 맞은 골드만삭스처럼 미국 국민들이 월가에 대해 비판적인 시각을 가지고 있기때문에 공화당이 무조건 반대만은 할 수 없는 상황이라고 합니다.? 만약 통과할 경우 월가 대형은행이 받을 타격은 아래와 같습니다.
? ?? New bank rules sink stocks중에서
그런데 Prop Trading을 규제한다고 실질적인 의미가 있을지 의문을 제기하는 분도 있습니다. 즉, Market Making과 Prop Trading의 차이가 모호하기 때문에 실효성이 없다는 의견입니다.
However, it is considered market making within the financial community. The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, recently told the Senate that Goldman Sachs did not engage in prop trading, but rather in market making. To explain this distinction: market making is viewed as a benign provision of liquidity; the idea is that the market maker serves humanity by making it less expensive for market participants to buy and sell securities. In exchange for this service, the market maker collects the bid/ask spread. Market making is sometimes viewed as a relatively conservative endeavor. In contrast, the term “prop trading” more often refers to making strategic bets. Whereas the market maker might get short a small amount of stock for a couple days because a customer wanted to buy it, the prop trader will heavily short the stock believing the company will soon go bankrupt. These distinctions are entirely arbitrary; market making is prop trading and I believe it is impossible to distinguish the two with regulation.
Obama’s Big Bank Initiatives: Revolutionary, Cataclysmic or Business as Usual? 중에서
3.
오바마의 규제정책은 MB정권의 금융정책과 궤를 달리합니다. 우리나라에선 금융감독위원회, 금융감독원등이 나서서 투자은행업무를 활성화하기 위해 적극 권장하고 있습니다. 유니버셜은행 혹은 투자상업은행이 옳다, 혹은 상업은행과 투자은행을 분리하는 모델이 옳다라고 할 수 있습니다.
투장은행이 가장 발전한 미국을 보더라도 환경이 변화함에 따라 모델도 같이 변화해왔습니다.
아무리 위험관리를 목소리 높혀 외친다고 하더라도 위험을 안을 수 밖에 없는 모델이라는 본질은 변함이 없으므로 규제는 필수적이라고 생각합니다. 그렇지만 적절한 수준이 무엇인지는 어렵네요. 정답이 없는 문제라….
