Since the 1990s, Washington’s unspoken preference has been for banks and other financial institutions to get ever bigger, and it’s acted accordingly, making life easier for giants while hobbling the little guy.
Continue readingThe House just voted to restrict open data at the SEC — what’s next?
H.R. 37 — a bill that would exempt more than half of public companies from reporting their financial statements as open data — roared back and passed the House. Will it become law?
Continue readingInfluence Analytics: What interests public most at SEC, CFTC? More data disclosure
Proposals to improve public disclosure of corporate and government accountability data attracted the most interest from members of the public, a Sunlight Foundation analysis of 10 years of public comments shows.
Continue readingTwo rules to ponder: one will guard your wallet, the other will save your life
Currently, there are two laws that show how important it is for people to pay attention to the rule-making process. The first deals with protecting people's wallets, while the other is intended to protect people's lives.
Continue readingWho met most with regulators to try to shape the Volcker Rule? The big banks, of course
While it’s unclear how Wall Street will respond to the final Volcker Rule proposal, one thing is clear: the banks have done their very best to bend and shape the rule by never leaving regulators alone.
Continue readingOpenGov Voices: A Transparent Approach to Understanding Local Government Debt
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight 
Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.
Marc Joffe is the founder of Public Sector Credit Solutions (PSCS) which applies open data and analytics to rating government bonds. Before starting PSCS, Marc was a Senior Director at Moody’s Analytics. You can contact him at marc@publicsectorcredit.org. Marc is also one of the winners of Sunlight Foundation’s OpenGov Grants.
High profile bankruptcy filings by Detroit and other cities, along with concerns about public employee pensions, are increasing borrowing costs for state and local governments. Higher interest payments to bondholders mean higher taxes and fewer services. However, with transparent data and analytics, local government bonds can get reasonable interest rates -- as this post will illustrate.
Over the last 70 years, municipal bond defaults have been rare. In a typical year, no more than one in 1,000 municipalities fail to make timely payments on their tax supported debt. Also, interest on municipal bonds is exempt from federal income taxes and usually free of state income taxes as well.
Because of their low risk and favorable tax treatment, municipal bonds have typically yielded less than US Treasury bonds – making it easy for states, cities, counties and school districts to finance new infrastructure. Time series data available from the Federal Reserve (a portion of which is depicted in the accompanying graph) show that yields on “munis” were lower than Treasuries from 1953 until the 2008 financial crisis. This discount returned briefly in 2010, but since Meredith Whitney predicted a wave of municipal bond defaults on 60 Minutes in December 2010, muni yields have exceeded Treasury yields – often by substantial margins.
Municipal and Treasury data Continue readingWhat Have they Got to Hide? Lawmakers Should Allow Meetings with Lobbyists to be Disclosed
Recently, my colleague Lee Drutman concluded that banks met with regulators at the Federal Reserve, Treasury and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission more than five times as often as reform-minded consumer groups in the past two years. His analysis provides a valuable tool for the media, academics and the public to better understand who is trying to shape financial industry regulations.
His conclusions, and the follow up questions that can now be asked (Did the banks get what they wanted? Are consumers’ interests being served?) are only possible because the agencies posted information about the meetings online.
Which begs the question: If the regulators can provide information about who is trying to influence the regulations they write, why doesn’t the public have access to similar information about meetings Members of Congress or their staff have with lobbyists?
Ex post facto lobbying: Banks blitz regulators to soften Dodd-Frank’s impact
The same financial interests that lobbied Congress when the Dodd-Frank reform legislation was being considered have turned their efforts toward the executive branch as it crafts rules implementing the law.
Continue readingDodd-Frank meeting data need improvement
As much as big data can tell us about how the big financial institutions that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis are dominating the rule writing for the Dodd-Frank law, our reporting has alerted us to the limitations of the data -- and to how important it is to watchdog.
Continue readingWhat the banks’ three-year war on Dodd-Frank looks like
Graphics by Ben Chartoff and Amy Cesal. Network analysis by Alexander Furnas. In the three years since President Barack Obama signed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, federal regulators charged with implementing it have opened their doors to the biggest banks over and over again – 14 times as frequently as they have to representatives of consumer and pro-financial reform groups, a new Sunlight Foundation analysis finds. By most accounts, the banks’ besiege-the-regulators strategy has yielded rich rewards in sapping, slowing, and stymieing regulations intended to prevent another massive financial crisis. The emerging consensus is that Dodd-Frank implementation is limping, while the big banks are poised to return to being the most profitable industry in the U.S. Sunlight’s analysis is based on logs of Dodd-Frank meetings at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Board., available through Sunlight’s Dodd-Frank Meetings Tracker. Because of problems with data quality and comprehensiveness, we had to exclude two other regulatory agencies (the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission). And because of the time involved in data cleaning, we also excluded 22 percent of reported meetings – those that did not include “active” players. (By “active” we mean organizations that showed up at least five times in meeting logs.) For more on the data, see our methodology section at the end of this post, and read our companion piece, “Dodd-Frank meeting data need improvement.” Still, the imbalances our analysis reveals are so overwhelming that we can be confident that they are not merely a feature of the reporting practices.
Continue reading
59063
