Share

Sex and Money: Are Women Regulators Different?

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair has been arguing that banks receiving public funds should be required to rework mortgage terms to help struggling homeowners. (Photo: Getty Images)

    It is hard not to notice that two of the regulators who stand out for doing the right thing in this incredible financial mess are women. Brooksley Born, as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Clinton, wanted to regulate credit default swaps and other derivative instruments back in the late 90s. Her effort was torpedoed by Clinton's economic heavyweights: Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.

    More recently, Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation (FDIC), has been a pesky voice, arguing that the purpose of the financial bailouts is not to ensure that the Robert Rubins of the world get to keep their day jobs at the Wall Street banks. She has been arguing that the banks that received public money should be required to rewrite mortgage terms so that more homeowners are able to stay in their homes.

    The role of these two women is surprising because finance, and its regulation, continues to be an area that is heavily dominated by men. Therefore, it is striking that just about the only regulators who stand out for trying to do the right thing in this tsunami of garbage finance are women.

    While some of the luminaries of the economics profession might seek to explain the unusual role of women regulators by biological differences between the sexes, there is a more obvious explanation. Basically, the women who enter the financial world have not been fully integrated into the club. They are still outsiders. Therefore, they are more likely to blow the whistle on the sweet deals that can make hundreds of millions for the boys, while leaving the rest of us out in the cold.

    This point was made explicitly in a surreptitious campaign to undermine Bair's standing in the Obama administration. According to one of the anonymous complainants, Bair is not a team player.

    This statement was intended as an indictment of her conduct as FDIC chair, but it actually looks like the highest possible form of praise. After all, this team of financial regulators makes the 1962 Mets look like world champions. If Bair doesn't fit in, then this is all for the good.

    If we needed any further evidence that the financial industry suffered from too much deference to insiders, Bernard Madoff filled the gap. He apparently ran a simple-minded Ponzi scheme for 30 years, stealing tens of billions of dollars from wealthy individuals, private charities and even large banks.

    When some investors and reporters raised suspicions about Mr. Madoff, no one bothered to seriously investigate because he was such a good guy. After all, he belonged to all the right clubs, generously supported charities and was even a founder of the Nasdaq.

    The regulators don't investigate respectable people like Madoff, and this is precisely the problem.

    The regulators are not supposed to be friends of the financial industry. They are the cops, who keep the industry from running off with our money. Remember, the big actors in the industry all benefit from a government insurance policy called "too big to fail."

    As any good believer in the free market knows, the finance boys will do everything they can to maximize the value of this government insurance policy. This means taking the biggest possible risks since, at the end of the day, the taxpayers, not the firm's creditors or executives, will pick up the tab. The financial regulators are the ones who are supposed to keep the banks from taking advantage of their government provided insurance, in addition to keeping them from ripping off pension funds, small city school districts, private charities, and any other suckers they find.

    It remains to be seen whether the Obama administration will be prepared to seriously regulate the financial industry. President Obama did pick a woman, Mary Schapiro, to be head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, but her past associations with the financial industry make her look like one of the boys.

    In the holiday spirit, perhaps we should give Schapiro and Obama the benefit of the doubt. But the reality is that the US financial industry is a cesspool. Cleaning it up must be a top priority for the Obama administration. The public must insist on a much smaller, cleaner industry and long jail sentences for the folks who brought us this economic disaster.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Bless 'em. We need more

Bless 'em. We need more women like that in positions where they can wield influence. Men, too, if they are in tune with Barack Obama and his concern for the struggling multitude among us. I've also felt we'd be involved in fewer wars if we had women instead of men making the decisions. Macho males just seem to be more self-absorbed and oblivious to the suffering of others. Not so with mothers.

Thanks to Dean Baker for

Thanks to Dean Baker for this perspective. Ms. Bair, like many women, is pragmatic. She simply wants the aid to go directly to the people most affected. This is not popular economic theory it seems. Perhaps President-elect Obama can talk with her about overseeing the TARP when he gets elected and making recommendations to the Justice Department for investigating what happened to the TARP funds already distributed.

Bravo for the idea of this

Bravo for the idea of this article. I was thinking of it myself, but couldn't come up with a reason why women are less corrupt and have more common sense. In the amazing team of women now taking over important financial roles in the Obama administration, don't forget Elizabeth Warren, one of the sanest voices in this entire mess, a credit expert from Harvard Law School, and an articulate opponent of the nasty Bankruptcy Law passed under Bush. She is now the watchdog for the bailout program. According to an interview I heard on "Fresh Air" she believes the federal bailout must come from the bottom up, as well as the top down - that it must address home foreclosures as well as banks. Because, if people keep foreclosing, the banks will fail anyway - and there goes our money. That means requiring new terms for these mortgages. A compassionate, fair and common sense proposal - similar to Sheila Blair.

The problem with US society

The problem with US society at large is contained within this article: the propensity for Americans to conflate "respectability" with the ability to generate wealth and especially with conspicuous consumption and self-indulgence. In the past 30 years we've been encouraged to abdicate our roles as citizens of a democracy responsible for economic, environmental and social issues, to consumers and voyeurs slavishly fawning on and aspiring to the most self-absorbed segment of society. Respectable people (i.e.people you can respect) are modest, thrifty, honest, respectful and compassionate. How many people in any "respectable" institution fit that bill or even try? The financial cesspool is in reality a reflecting pool of US society at this moment and the only way to change it to stop expecting someone else to clean it up.

Short-sellers called some of

Short-sellers called some of the scams before they got caught otherwise. It's predictable what certain old boys want to do to the hedgers. If they outlaw hedgehogs, they will go underground, where they will find a lot of company. More of the country may soon be as corrupt as some of our more notorious locales. Companies deciding to be transparent do so at heavy risk. Corporate law encourages hiding in plain sight, among excess verbiage and tax-required clutter. An adept multi-state intruder can use clutter as a weapon, especially against small, local companies. Ironically, anti-trust law can be used in this legal intrusion by the biggies. I wonder how long before ordinary people have to get most everything they need from the underground. We have hired a politician from Chicago to clean the cesspool. Only the Great Whatever knows how this is going to work. It's the Christmas season, but I am already pining for Epiphany.

Yes, women are different.

Yes, women are different. Since they were not likely to be obligated for "sweet" deals as so many of the good ol' boys are, they don't owe loyalty on that basis. So they are free to look at situations, realize what's going on,and blow whistles. Of course they then get a reputation for not playing ball, not being trustworthy, etc. As for men, did Hank Paulson actually leave Goldman Sachs when he accepted the Treasury job? For whom is he REALLY working? There's the contrast.

Women aren't 'naturally'

Women aren't 'naturally' more ethical or better behaved than men. There are plenty of historical examples of harridans the world would have been better off without. But, in evolutionary terms, females tend to be more conservative and practical in behavior due to long gestation periods and lengthy maturation periods for offspring. Historically, not being tied down to rearing the next generation, males are more likely to take risks. Men can nurture as well as women. They just don't have as long a resume as the girls do. Maybe we ought to let the girls into the clubhouse and see what happens. After all, we've had plenty of college educated guys telling us to trust them with the keys to the kingdom for decades and look where it got us. ...Korea, VietNam, Iraq, the tech bubble, the housing bubble, the last 20 yrs. of unregulated banking mess, the gutting of the Constitution, the. . . . .well. . ..you get the picture. Your little brother's been in the cookie jar and now you've got to clean up the mess. Why am I not surprised?

After thousands of horrific

After thousands of horrific years at the hands of aggressive male hierarchy proponents, I'm ready to greet a new world order where female energy can start the healing process, the care of the planet and all its inhabitants. As someone else said, we are in the final phase of a race between disaster and consciousness and we don't have much time to change our focus.

The financial disaster

The financial disaster facing the U.S. (and the rest of the world) isn't gender related. Rather, it's greed related. I find this article to be lacking any evidence whatsoever that "just about the only regulators who stand out for trying to do the right thing in this tsunami of garbage finance are women." Ms. Born worked in the Clinton administration. The last I checked, Clinton left office in January 2001. Ms. Bair is the only example provided with any current relevance. I'm not trying to discredit Ms. Born or Ms. Bair for their respective stances, and they certainly deserve credit for their work. Dean Baker, however, attempts to illuminate their exploits and foresight by contrasting the two women with money-hungry (and male) dirtbags like Rubin and Madoff. Sorry, but that effort doesn't resonate with me. What did resonate was Baker's assertion that regulators are supposed to police the banking industry. Clearly, they failed on all levels. But how all this relates back to gender is a mystery to me. This is about greed and incompetence, nothing more. Women, without question, are just as capable of greed and incompetence as men (ex: how many women sit on the boards of directors at "failing" institutions now swimming in cash provided by the trillion-dollar bailout?). We need regulators who 1) are empowered to do their job, and 2) use that power effectively and with honest, noble intentions. It doesn't matter whether those regulators are men or women. To suggest one gender would be better served than the other, at least in my opinion, is a disservice to readers here.

Dean, you're cherry picking

Dean, you're cherry picking your heroes. The villains of the current crisis are overwhelmingly men because men dominated the world of finance, as they do almost all others, on the basis of brains, guts, energy and hardheadedness; in fact, it's how men created most of what we call "civilization." Not to detract from the perspectives that outsiders can bring, but, on the whole, women actually have less of a sense of justice than men, in that they are much more likely to give sympathy and succor to those who do not deserve it. Call it a misplacement of the maternal instinct. In its proper sphere, it’s as natural as the sunrise, but outside, it can waste resources, drag down the truly deserving and wreak havoc and destruction. Those responsible for this situation may be mainly men -- though who knows for sure how many women were more than just bit players -- but my best bet would be on honest and forthright men to be the ones to lead us out of it, if such is possible.

Re commenter #1: Methinks

Re commenter #1: Methinks the commenter doth protest too much.

Please don't forget all the

Please don't forget all the Ann Coulters out there. Please don't forget Margaret Thatcher. Please don't forget all the Queens, Empresses, and Princesses who've ruined countries and economies and sent MEN to their deaths in needless wars. Yea right, its a guy thing !

If Obama doesn't regulate

If Obama doesn't regulate these industries and end the privatize everything political meme, his presidency will flow down the gutter and into the sewers of history like bush's definitely has.

The women I've known in the

The women I've known in the more than 60 yr I've rolled around this earth have generally been more far sighted, altruistic, and sensitive to other sentient beings than the men I've known. Whether that's a matter more of nature than nurture or vice versa I have no idea. More important, I have no idea what would count as good evidence one way or another and how you would get evidence. But not knowing why doesn't erase knowing that. I'd bet the farm that our grandchildren would live in a far kinder, more peaceful, and more egalitarian world than we do if knowledgeable and competent women, mirabile dictu, were allowed to hold up their half of the sky. Hell, the women could reach more than parity tomorrow if we got rid of all the ignorant and incompetent men. My guess is that our times would not be so perilous had the powers that be not excluded women, except of course for a soupcon of PR tokens, from virtually all councils. Men have excluded women on the basis of all sorts of ego and penis inflating rationalizations. Attention! Dee-Flate! (Just an aside to block a tempting escape route: I am one of the penis provided.)

I heard a score of male

I heard a score of male economists - before, during, and afterward the bailout(s) -- recommend Sheila Baer for Obama cabinet -- how about Secretary of the Treasury? So prevasive, I suggested some of my progressive radio shows interview her, including Dean Baker, as I remember. But nada... What's the disconnect here? I like some of the suggested future positions for her (above)

Wasn't Margaret Thatcher a

Wasn't Margaret Thatcher a woman?

Any honest man who takes a

Any honest man who takes a look around will have to admit the women in the office do a much better job then they do. They are general better prepared, do a lot better with follow through, often are much easier to deal with and have a much more organized work space. Thank God no one really notices, otherwise we'd be screwed. And not in a good way.

I agree that the two women

I agree that the two women mentioned in the article do a stellar job in the positions they occupy. However, I do not believe that this is gender related but is based on the character of the the individuals. Of course there are a lot of males who screw up our economy and perform illegal acts, but that is because there are more men that have been anointed with leadership positions. . There are many conscientious and moral male and female leaders. I believe that it is the individual and not the gender that governs the behavior and honesty of people in responsible positions.

Women as a group are not

Women as a group are not really different. How many generalizations fail when you look at individuals... right. Some people are good at their job--are those that do their job and what their job requires instead of putting their "personal interests" ahead of their "job description." There are many people, men and women, who give in and who do what "is right" (according to their job description). To somehow insinuate that one gender is "better" is somehow as prejudiced as saying any (insert your term here) is better than another... You just can't generalize... So stop trying...