Welcome Home, Tim Geithner

You can’t blame the former Treasury chief for cashing in. But let’s not whitewash him either.

Geithner: Believes swaps have less risk.
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Nov. 18, 2013, 9:32 a.m.

No one should be­grudge Timothy Geithner his new job. It was in­ev­it­able that a man who had been spir­itu­ally cap­tured by Wall Street would someday join it in the flesh. In truth the former Treas­ury sec­ret­ary held out far longer than the band of Ru­bin­ites he sprang from. And by join­ing a re­spect­able private-equity firm, War­burg Pin­cus — rather than one of the banks he bailed out — at least Geithner is avoid­ing the path to repu­ta­tion­al ru­in fol­lowed by his ment­or, Robert Ru­bin, who while he was in Wash­ing­ton freed up Cit­ig­roup to be­come an eco­nomy-des­troy­ing mon­ster and then went to Wall Street to join it, stand­ing by in be­fuddle­ment while the bank nearly im­ploded.

Geithner has a fam­ily to feed after all; he has every right to cash in with the vast in­dustry he saved and pro­tec­ted. It seems a bit over­ripe for Den­nis Kelle­her, head of the Bet­ter Mar­kets ad­vocacy group, to sug­gest that Geithner’s “spin through the re­volving door” will “fur­ther erode pub­lic con­fid­ence in gov­ern­ment,” when such con­fid­ence is all but un­detect­able today.

But neither should Geithner get a full pass, as CN­BC’s Ben White seems all too eager to give him in a Web piece today.

CN­BC, of course, tends to cov­er Wall Street in some­what the way Pravda once covered the So­viet Uni­on, with a lot of boos­t­er­ism and without ask­ing too many fun­da­ment­al ques­tions. But White, who also writes for Politico, is a re­spect­able fin­an­cial re­port­er and should know bet­ter. White ar­gues that the cri­ti­cism of Geithner “neg­lects to men­tion” that the former Treas­ury chief  “in­her­ited the Wall Street bail­out” and “fails to ask the fun­da­ment­al ques­tion of what, ex­actly, the ad­min­is­tra­tion was sup­posed to do with the bank­ing sec­tor, let it fail and turn a crush­ing re­ces­sion in­to a last­ing de­pres­sion?”

This is an egre­gious mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion of his­tory. No know­ledge­able ob­serv­er doubts that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion in­her­ited the crisis (though Geithner, as head of the New York Fed, did not), and that the new pres­id­ent was faced with a stark choice of bail­ing out the bank­ing sec­tor in the nerve-wrack­ing months of early 2009 or send­ing the eco­nomy in­to a De­pres­sion.

But by the time Con­gress began de­bat­ing ser­i­ous re­form in late 2009, the banks were much health­i­er. The pan­ic had passed. Yet even then Geithner re­fused to tamper with their struc­ture and bal­ance sheets — to the point where even seni­or Fed of­fi­cials like Gov­ernor Dan Tarullo today think that Dodd-Frank doesn’t have enough re­straints on the banks. Geithner’s fel­low Cab­in­et mem­ber, At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Hold­er, has pub­licly ques­tioned wheth­er the banks are not only too big to fail, but also too big to pro­sec­ute.  As Har­vard Uni­versity’s Ken­neth Ro­goff, a former ad­viser to John Mc­Cain, said of Geithner in a 2011 in­ter­view with me, echo­ing the views of many fin­an­cial ex­perts: “He was too gen­er­ous to the fin­an­cial sys­tem. He fol­lowed a set of policies aimed at pre­serving the status quo.”

White also cred­its Geithner with the best of the Dodd-Frank fin­an­cial-re­form law, say­ing, “It’s a big stretch to sug­gest Geithner stood in the way of stronger re­form in or­der to win a place for him­self on Wall Street.”

A truer his­tory of that law would re­cord that Geithner res­isted many of its toughest pro­vi­sions, in­clud­ing the “Vol­ck­er Rule,” which he avoided un­til the pres­id­ent in­sisted on it. As former Fed­er­al De­pos­it In­sur­ance Corp. chief Sheila Bair wrote in her frank mem­oir this year about her ma­jor battles with Geithner, Bull by the Horns: “I couldn’t think of one Dodd-Frank re­form that Tim strongly sup­por­ted. Res­ol­u­tion au­thor­ity, de­riv­at­ives re­form, the Vol­ck­er and Collins amend­ments — he had worked to weak­en or op­pose them all.”

Geithner, in truth, of­ten seemed in deni­al of the deep­er sys­tem­ic dangers on Wall Street that he, as a mem­ber of Ru­bin’s team back in the 1990s, had helped to cre­ate. Their sig­na­ture policy, the 1999 re­peal of Glass-Steagall, en­sured there would longer be any strong fire­walls and cap­it­al buf­fers between Wall Street in­sti­tu­tions and their af­fil­i­ates, and between banks and non­banks and in­sur­ance com­pan­ies. A year later, in 2000, then-Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Lawrence Sum­mers and Geithner pushed for the Com­mod­ity Fu­tures Mod­ern­iz­a­tion Act, which cre­ated a glob­al lais­sez-faire mar­ket worth tril­lions in un­mon­itored trades. With the re­peal of Glass-Steagall, sys­tem­ic fail­ure was largely for­got­ten while at the same time, with the pas­sage of the CFMA, huge new sys­tem­ic risks were be­ing cre­ated.

Yet Geithner, throughout his ten­ure, did not ac­know­ledge these mis­takes and res­isted more fun­da­ment­al re­forms like the Vol­ck­er Rule, which harked back to the spir­it of Glass-Steagall by seek­ing to bar fed­er­ally in­sured banks from the ris­ki­est trad­ing.

Per­son­ally, I don’t be­lieve that Geithner took the po­s­i­tions he did “in or­der to win a place for him­self on Wall Street.” He’s not that kind of fel­low. I think he did it be­cause he be­lieved in Wall Street. Wel­come home, Tim.

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
IN ADDITION TO DNC AND DCCC
Clinton Campaign Also Hacked
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×