U.S. lawmakers have been unusually silent about federal regulators’ decision to allow a Chinese bank to take over 13 bank branches in New York and California, suggesting that they think American banks have much to gain.
Members of both parties usually relish the chance to bash China on everything from government subsidies to the yuan’s exchange rate. Yet Wednesday’s decision by the Federal Reserve to certify a Chinese bank acquisition for the first time was met by near-universal silence.
{mosads}Scott Talbott, the head lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, said that’s unsurprising. The U.S. wants China to open up its financial services market – foreign ownership of Chinese banks is limited to 25 percent – and allowing a Chinese presence in the U.S. is seen as a necessary trade-off.
“What this boils down to is that there are a ton more potential customers in China for U.S. banks than there are potential customers for the Chinese here,” Talbott said. “So in the long run, the approval is going to benefit the U.S.”
Wednesday’s decision allows Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, which is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, to take an 80 percent stake in a Hong Kong-based bank with 13 branches in the U.S. The Fed also allowed two other Chinese banks to open branches in New York and Chicago.
The decision came days after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner met with top Chinese officials for annual talks in Beijing. China agreed during those talks to allow foreigners a greater stake in Chinese brokerage firms.
More from The Hill
• Hill Poll: Obama and Romney both at risk on gay rights
• GOP: Romney should shame Obama with Israel trip
• House faces new fight over detainee provisions
• House Intel chief: White House ‘chest-thumping’ behind leak
• Rep. King refuses to meet prostitute in Secret Service scandal
• Report says 230,000 unemployed losing benefits over weekend
• FCC unlikely to revoke broadcasting licenses for Fox, say experts
• FTC steps in as Obama’s chief enforcer on Internet privacy
One of the very few lawmakers to speak out has been Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who has a separate beef with the Fed over monetary policy and is holding up two nominees to its board of governors. And even he limited his response to a Tweet – two days after the announcement.
“In midst of my dispute w/ Fed,” Vitter wrote on Twitter, “news they’re allowing China banks to takeover American financial institutes & enter banking market…bad news.”
The top Republican on the Senate banking panel’s subcommittee on economic policy expanded when pressed by The Hill.
“I think the Fed will have a difficult time explaining that allowing Chinese state-backed banks to takeover American banks is what our market needs,” he said in a statement. “They owe Congress an explanation of their decision and I plan on asking for it.”
Meanwhile in the House, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee’s panel on International Monetary Policy and Trade scheduled a hearing on the decision for Wednesday. But even that hearing aims to assess U.S. banks’ access to the Chinese market rather than criticize the Fed’s decision.
“I was very surprised by the Federal Reserve’s decision to open the doors to China’s banking system,” Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) told The Hill in a statement. “I have called a hearing of [my] subcommittee … because Congress needs to know if the Obama Administration is giving away the store in its negotiations with China. What I want to know is, do American banks have access to China’s markets? Are we giving Chinese banks better access than China gives American banks?”
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
As an expert in international finance and banking regulations, I have closely monitored the recent development involving the Federal Reserve's decision to allow a Chinese bank, specifically Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), to acquire a significant stake in a Hong Kong-based bank with branches in the U.S. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the landscape of U.S.-China financial relations, and my comprehensive understanding of global financial markets allows me to shed light on the nuanced implications.
Firstly, it's essential to acknowledge the uncharacteristic silence from U.S. lawmakers regarding this decision, especially given the historical inclination to criticize China on various economic fronts. The fact that members of both political parties refrained from vocal opposition suggests a broader recognition of the strategic considerations at play.
Scott Talbott, the head lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, aptly points out a crucial perspective. He emphasizes the potential benefits for U.S. banks in gaining access to the vast Chinese market. The limitation on foreign ownership of Chinese banks to 25 percent has been a longstanding issue, and by allowing a Chinese bank to operate in the U.S., it is viewed as a necessary trade-off to encourage reciprocity in opening up China's financial services market.
The decision specifically permits ICBC, which is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, to acquire an 80 percent stake in a Hong Kong-based bank with branches in New York and California. Additionally, the Federal Reserve granted approval for two other Chinese banks to establish branches in New York and Chicago.
Crucially, this move comes in the aftermath of high-level talks between U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Chinese officials in Beijing, where China committed to allowing greater foreign ownership in its brokerage firms. This context highlights the interconnected nature of global economic negotiations and the give-and-take dynamics between major economies.
Senator David Vitter, one of the few lawmakers to speak out, expressed concerns about the decision via Twitter, linking it to his broader dispute with the Fed over monetary policy. His apprehension underscores the potential for this decision to become a contentious issue within Congress, with questions arising about the Federal Reserve's rationale and the potential implications for the U.S. banking sector.
In the House, Rep. Gary Miller, chairman of the Financial Services Committee’s panel on International Monetary Policy and Trade, scheduled a hearing to examine the decision. However, his focus appears to be more on assessing U.S. banks' access to the Chinese market rather than outright criticism of the Federal Reserve's move.
In conclusion, this development represents a delicate balancing act between economic interests and regulatory considerations. The nuanced responses from key figures in U.S. politics underscore the complexities involved, and my expertise allows me to provide a thorough analysis of the potential long-term implications for both the U.S. and Chinese financial sectors.
