Key Takeaways
- • The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), chaired by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, has excluded hedge fund systemic risk from its agenda despite forming a dedicated working group in April 2016 to investigate potential financial stability threats posed by the hedge fund industry.
- • The FSOC's hedge fund working group developed a "compelling analytical framework" for assessing systemic risks, yet this research has not been brought before the full Council for discussion or action as of the September 22, 2017 meeting.
- • The Center for American Progress argues that the FSOC's hedge fund oversight work is critical to financial stability and should not be abandoned, citing the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) case and lessons from the 2007–2008 financial crisis as evidence that hedge fund risks are not theoretical.
- • The hedge fund industry has actively opposed the FSOC's working group and its investigation, creating political pressure that may be influencing the Council's decision to deprioritize the issue despite the Dodd-Frank Act's mandate for systemic risk oversight.
- • Additional legislative and regulatory actions may be warranted to ensure continued FSOC focus on hedge fund systemic risks beyond the working group's initial research phase.
Summary
The Financial Stability Oversight Council, established under the Dodd-Frank Act to address systemic financial risks that regulators failed to monitor before the 2008 crisis, appears to be sidelining its investigation into hedge fund stability risks. As Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin prepared to chair the FSOC's fourth meeting since assuming leadership in early 2017, the Center for American Progress flagged a notable omission: no update on hedge fund systemic risk appeared on the September 22 agenda, despite the Council having established a dedicated working group over a year prior.
The working group, formed in April 2016, conducted extensive research over the subsequent twelve months, developing what the Center describes as a "compelling analytical framework" for evaluating financial stability threats emanating from the hedge fund sector. However, this analytical work has not been elevated for full Council deliberation or action, raising questions about the Trump administration's commitment to this particular regulatory priority. This gap is particularly significant given the FSOC's core mandate—a mandate born directly from regulatory blindspots that preceded the financial crisis.
The Center for American Progress contends that hedge fund systemic risk assessment is too consequential to deprioritize, pointing to historical precedent. The case of Long-Term Capital Management, which nearly triggered systemic contagion in 1998, demonstrates that hedge fund leverage and interconnectedness can pose real financial stability threats rather than theoretical concerns. The 2007–2008 financial crisis further illustrated how interconnected financial institutions and complex instruments can amplify systemic vulnerabilities when oversight is inadequate.
Industry opposition appears to complicate the regulatory landscape. The hedge fund sector has actively resisted the FSOC's working group and its inquiry, potentially influencing the Council's decision to deprioritize hedge fund risk analysis. The Center argues that such industry pressure should not derail the FSOC's statutory responsibility to identify and address systemic risks, and contends that the Dodd-Frank Act's regulatory improvements—which created the FSOC itself—could be undermined if this work stream is abandoned. The brief suggests that additional legislative and regulatory measures may be necessary to ensure sustained attention to hedge fund systemic risk.
The working group, formed in April 2016, conducted extensive research over the subsequent twelve months, developing what the Center describes as a "compelling analytical framework" for evaluating financial stability threats emanating from the hedge fund sector. However, this analytical work has not been elevated for full Council deliberation or action, raising questions about the Trump administration's commitment to this particular regulatory priority. This gap is particularly significant given the FSOC's core mandate—a mandate born directly from regulatory blindspots that preceded the financial crisis.
The Center for American Progress contends that hedge fund systemic risk assessment is too consequential to deprioritize, pointing to historical precedent. The case of Long-Term Capital Management, which nearly triggered systemic contagion in 1998, demonstrates that hedge fund leverage and interconnectedness can pose real financial stability threats rather than theoretical concerns. The 2007–2008 financial crisis further illustrated how interconnected financial institutions and complex instruments can amplify systemic vulnerabilities when oversight is inadequate.
Industry opposition appears to complicate the regulatory landscape. The hedge fund sector has actively resisted the FSOC's working group and its inquiry, potentially influencing the Council's decision to deprioritize hedge fund risk analysis. The Center argues that such industry pressure should not derail the FSOC's statutory responsibility to identify and address systemic risks, and contends that the Dodd-Frank Act's regulatory improvements—which created the FSOC itself—could be undermined if this work stream is abandoned. The brief suggests that additional legislative and regulatory measures may be necessary to ensure sustained attention to hedge fund systemic risk.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.