Research that proves all the senator’s assumptions about financial regulation are wrong

Christopher Dodd: The regulator

The Senate passed a 1,500-page financial regulation bill last week after a year of rigorous bipartisan discussions over how, exactly, to get more of your money and put America at greater risk while diverting all blame away from the politicians. Outgoing Connecticut Senator and Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd considered as his personal triumph not just the passage of this bill, but the way it was done — with “full-throated, engaging, vibrant debate on a critical issue in front of our country.”

I can attest that Dodd was recently exposed to the most important and relevant information for his bill. I sent him an e-mail a month ago. Here is an abbreviated version, and it included a link to the research mentioned:

“Senator Dodd,

For your banking committee to honestly explore all possible avenues of regulations of risk, you need to be aware of new research findings that I have co-authored. Our research proves, both mathematically and empirically, that ANY regulation of risk will always INCREASE risk, particularly systemic risk. I believe it would be negligent of the committee not to consider the implications of this research because it predicts that specific kinds of regulations that might otherwise be adopted will backfire.

I am available to testify or discuss with you or your staff further at any time.”

As you may imagine, Dodd’s office called me immediately. They diligently verified every aspect of the proof. They brought in outside experts to check the math and other experts to check the data. When it became clear to everybody that financial regulation of risk will only increase our systemic risk, the chairman himself flew out to see me.

Over the sounds of his helicopter’s blades rotating on my front lawn, Dodd thanked me for the research, saying it came just in the nick of time. He called me a national hero. Unbidden, a tear rolled down his cheek as he looked me in the eye and told me his life’s goal has been to reduce the risk of financial turmoil, and that up to today, he had always thought that meant we just needed the right rules, the right regulators, the right people in charge. Now he saw that those rules and laws and regulations were actually the cause of the financial collapse. He told me he would abandon the new bill and replace it with a bill to end the Federal Reserve, legalize alternative currencies, shut down the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and let any organization that wants to be a bank be a bank, with no further regulation, but saving criminal prosecutions for fraud and theft.

At least, that’s what should have happened if this latest addition to the rotting pyramid of regulation truly was the result of a “full-throated, engaging, vibrant debate.” Of course, none of it did. My front lawn remains helicopter-free. No one from Dodd’s office ever contacted me. Even though I am his constituent. Even though I sent it both to his own account and to that of the committee. Even though the research proves that his bill harms the very goal he claims to espouse.

A pack of wolves deciding just how to storm the chicken coop is not the definition of a vibrant, engaging debate. Even if the chickens elected those particular wolves instead of others equally vicious. When will chickens stop voting for red and blue wolves?

Dr. Phil Maymin is an Assistant Professor of Finance and Risk Engineering at NYU-Polytechnic Institute. The views expressed are his own.

Questions or comments? Email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Share this story:
Facebook |Twitter |Digg |Reddit |Stumbleupon

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."