Clark Street CEO on Candidate’s Impact on Banks-3/7/16
Big banks, he and others say, are likely to face ongoing scrutiny under a Clinton administration, especially given that Sanders has made breaking up big banks a centerpiece of his campaign. In doing so, Sanders has motivated Clinton to take stronger stances against Wall Street and megabanks. Clinton has, for example, raised the idea of a “risk fee” on financial companies larger than $50 billion in assets.
In the recent past, when Washington has ramped up regulation on major banks, it often has trickled down to smaller ones. That remains a concern.
“She’s certainly under pressure from the left wing of her party to be more anti-bank,” Jon Winick, CEO of bank advisory firmClark Street Capital, said in an interview.
That said, Winick added that while “Sanders is all about breaking up the big banks, Clinton’s positions are more nuanced.”
Odds still point to Republicans retaining control of the U.S. House next year, analysts say, meaning Clinton would not be able to drive new legislation through Congress. That, Winick said, would likely mean plenty of gridlock and only minor changes affecting banks — a continuation of the last few years of President Barack Obama’s tenure.
But, Winick noted, in his last State of the Union Address, Obama gave a nod to modest deregulation — “I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed. There is red tape that needs to be cut,” the president said — providing a Clinton administration at least one favorable starting point on which it could pick up from Obama and reach out to the financial sector.
Seiberg agreed. “Clinton offers opportunity for banks to reset their relationship with Washington to something at least somewhat more positive, and that may be the best banks can hope for coming out of this election,” he said.