Toy company ignores the storyline

We are constantly bombarded with the argument that New Jersey has created an awful business climate that drives companies elsewhere — but then we get news, from NJBIZ.com, that the educational toy company Melissa & Doug, is relocating to South Brunswick from Connecticut.

Melissa & Doug was “looking for a location that was best suited to cover everywhere from Florida to Maine,” said NAI James E. Hanson Senior Vice President Kenneth Lundberg, who along with Joel Hausman, of Fairfield, Conn.-based Colonial Realty, represented the company in the deal. “New Jersey is what appeared on their radar screen.”

Central New Jersey is more centrally located for distribution than Connecticut, being roughly equidistant to Philadelphia and New York and Boston and Washington, D.C., he said. “In a single truck-driving day, by locating in central New Jersey, you probably double the number of population you can reach in one day” compared to Connecticut, Lundberg said.

Apparently, taxes and environmental regulations — the two most-frequently cited reasons that the business community and its apologists offer — are not the only factors businesses consider.

Call him Timothy "Get-tough" Geithner

OK. The headline’s meant ironically, of course, but if the Treasury secretary fills in the details of today’s financial industry regulation plan with some real teeth, we might just want to start calling him that.

Here is what The New York Times is reporting today based on Geithner’s testimony before the House Financial Services Committee:

Mr. Geithner, in his opening statement, called for “comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”

Under the administration proposal, hedge fund, private equity and venture capital fund advisers would for the first time have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. They would be required to provide the government — on a confidential basis — information on how much they borrow to leverage their investments as well as information about their investors and trading partners. The S.E.C. would then share those reports with a new “systemic risk regulator.”

On first blush, it seems shockingly strict given how Geithner has been dithering on this up until now (not to mention that his dangerous public-private bailout plan could cost us far more than we should have to pay for this mess).

Geithner has, until now, been far too worried about what the bankers and pseudo bankers had to say, too concerned that the people who gambled like drunken cowboys would get angry with us.

More from the Times:

The plan outlined in broad strokes by Mr. Geithner would require Congressional approval. It would give the government new powers over “systemically important” banks and other financial institutions that are so big that their collapse would jeopardize the economy as a whole.

The plan also calls for the government to

The government would have the power to peer into the inner workings of companies that currently escape most federal supervision — insurance companies like A.I.G., multibillion-dollar hedge funds like the Citadel Group and private equity firms like the Carlyle Group or Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts.

If regulators decided that a company had become “too big to fail,” as was the case with A.I.G. in September, they would subject it to much stricter capital requirements than smaller rivals and much closer scrutiny of its borrowing levels and its trading partners, or counterparties.

Geithner apparently envisions something like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, “created during the Depression after a wave of bank failures, insures customers’ deposits and can take over failing banks.”

(T)he most striking new proposals, and the ones that may provoke the most heated opposition from the industry, would regulate so-called private pools of capital — hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds — and the gigantic market in financial derivatives, including instruments like credit-default swaps, the insurancelike instruments that allow investors to hedge against bond defaults.

Privately traded derivatives — “like the credit-default swaps that were used both to hedge against and to speculate on high-risk mortgage-backed securities” — also would come under scrutiny, the paper said:

The administration would require that all standardized derivatives be traded through a regulated clearinghouse. Traders would be required to provide documentation on their collateral and borrowings. They would also be subject to new eligibility requirements, and their trading and settlement practices would be subject to new standards.

As I said, we have to wait for the details, but this looks a lot better than I had been expecting.

Jamesburg wants homeowners to be in the know

The housing crisis affects nearly all of us, driving down resale prices, drying up credit, creating employment instability and leaving everyone vulnerable to foreclosure.

Jamesburg officials, who have little authority to address the issue, are doing what they can. The borough will host a Mortgage Crisis Forum on Saturday that will bring together a panel of experts to address homeowner concerns.

Brenda Deans, borough councilwoman and chairwoman of the Homeowner Relations Committee, the chief organizer, views the forum as a chance to make sure borough residents know what kind of help is available should they run into problems.

”There are people at their end, where they don’t know what to do,” she said. “The object is to get people out there, to see what’s out there for help.”

Information, she said, is key.

”You’ve got folks that are filing for bankruptcy, and maybe they have to and maybe they don’t,” Ms. Deans said. “I just want people to be educated. At least if they know, this will get them in the right direction.”

Makes sense to me.

The forum will take place March 28, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., at Borough Hall, 131 Perrineville Road.

Power to the people?

Question: Were Congress to hand the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve “broad new government authority to regulate or even take control of financial institutions other than banks,” who would be the beneficiary?

The answer might lie in this description of the plan on The New York Times web site:

The government has such authority for banks; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has power to step in to clean up a bank’s books and alter business practices like executive compensation. There is no such federal authority for non-bank entities, like A.I.G., that in recent years have become bigger players in the financial system. Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the F.D.I.C., has said she believed such authority was necessary.

The administration — because of its ties to Wall Street via its financial team — has been too cautious in dealing with the financial sector, playing to accepted cliches that no longer apply (not that they ever did). Those ties raise questions, as David Sirota points out, about whether the administration would have used the authority it is now seeking.

However, if the populist pressure out there is making them demand this authority, then that’s a good thing. Once they have this authority, they will have a harder time pretending they can’t do anything to stop the kleptocracy.