An Example of Hypocrisy: Bankers Argue Against Federal Regulator - For Them

Here's a quick quiz. Which industry groups said this?:

"…the current regulatory structure is complex, but variety in regulatory perspective provides a 'healthy check against any one regulator neglecting its duties.'"

Was it PIA, arguing against a federal insurance regulator and in favor of state regulation? It could have been, but in this case it was not.

The groups making this robust argument against consolidating regulatory authority in one federal regulator are … The American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA). Both groups sent a letter to Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is a leading proponent of the single regulator concept for banks, urging him to maintain the system of multiple regulators at the federal and state level.

What It Means to Agents:  It is interesting to note that the same groups who argue vehemently that state regulation of insurance is duplicitave and inefficient and want a federal insurance regulator suddenly start singing a different tune - the one independent agents sing - when they find it to their advantage.

Webster's dictionary defines hypocricy as "a feigning to believe what one does not." Something to keep in mind the next time these bankers get back up on their high horses and start preaching sermons about the benefits of federal regulation - for us, but not for them.

Bankers Oppose Plans to Consolidate Regulators (FinReg21 10/21/09)