Financial Reform Legislation Message to the Congress Proposing the Legislation.

To the Congress of the United States:

For over a decade, the Federal government has limited the interest rates that savers can receive on their deposits in banks and savings institutions. In keeping with my commitment to eliminate inequitable and unnecessary regulations, I directed an Administration task force, chaired by the Treasury Department, to review the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of these interest rate controls.

Based on the task force's findings, I am today recommending that the Congress enact comprehensive financial reform legislation. I am asking that the Congress permit an orderly transition to a system where the average depositor can receive market-level interest rates on his or her savings. I am also proposing measures to protect the long-term viability of savings institutions so that they can pay fair and competitive rates to depositors and continue their traditional role in meeting our nation's housing needs.

These actions will reform a system which has become increasingly unfair to the small saver. The present rate ceilings are costing the American people billions of dollars in lost interest annually. Our senior citizens, and others whose savings are concentrated in passbook accounts, have suffered the most. During a period of high inflation, it is particularly unconscionable for the Federal government to prohibit small savers from receiving the return on their deposits that is available to large and sophisticated investors.

The present ceilings have also contributed to sharp fluctuations in the flow of housing credit. Large cyclical swings in the availability of mortgage funds have increased housing costs and forced many prospective homebuyers out of the market during periods of high interest rates. The actions I am recommending today will' help assure a steadier flow of mortgage credit for homebuyers.

Savings and loan associations exist to channel household savings into mortgages. Mutual savings banks are also major suppliers of housing credit. Because these institutions invest in long-term, fixed-rate mortgages, they are limited in their ability to meet competitive rates for savings when interest rates rise.

In 1966, interest rates rose sharply, and depositors fled many of these institutions to those able to pay higher interest rates. To prevent the failure of savings institutions and the disruption of the mortgage and housing markets, deposit rate ceilings covering commercial banks were temporarily extended to thrift institutions. The ceilings generally have been administered to permit thrift institutions to pay higher rates of interest than commercial banks.

Conditions have changed dramatically since these limitations were first imposed on thrift institutions. In the current economic and financial environment, the ceilings have the following effects:

• They discriminate against the small saver, who often lacks sufficient funds to purchase market-rate securities which are available to the large investor.

• They are increasingly ineffective in maintaining deposit flows to thrift institutions. The financial marketplace is becoming adept at creating new investment alternatives, such as the money market mutual funds, which induce the small saver to withdraw his funds to obtain benefits similar to those enjoyed by the large investor. While the six-month money market certificate has succeeded in maintaining the flow of housing credit since last year, it has imposed serious pressures on thrift institutions, and it is not a long-term solution.

• They avoid the discipline of competition and create inefficiencies in the financial marketplace. Financial institutions are limited to non-price competitive practices such as merchandising gifts, although the consumer might prefer a higher yield on his savings.

These problems cannot be solved overnight. They are rooted in the structure of our financial system, and their resolution will require a careful and deliberate approach which takes account of the realities facing our thrift institutions.

Our savings institutions have been required by law and influenced by tax incentives to invest primarily in residential mortgages. In most states, the law confines them to long-term fixed-rate mortgages. Their sources of funds—deposits-have considerably shorter maturities. When short-term interest rates rise sharply, revenues are limited by their earnings on the existing longer-term mortgages. Since their deposit liabilities are more volatile than their assets, they must pay depositors market rates or they start to lose their deposits.

While raising or removing the ceilings would give savings institutions the legal power to pay market rates to depositors, their economic ability to do so is still limited by the earnings from their mortgage investments. Savings institutions must be given new investment powers so that they can afford to pay higher rates and maintain the flow of mortgage credit. The transition to freer deposit rates and to new asset powers must be orderly, to avoid major shocks to the financial system.

The disparity between market rates and the ceilings is greatest during periods of high interest rates. Yet that is the time when it is most difficult for the regulatory agencies that set the ceilings to raise them substantially. These agencies are also responsible for the safety and soundness of financial institutions. If deposit interest rates rise sharply, the institutions' earnings come under great pressure unless, at the same time, their earnings are made more responsive to changing interest rates.

Accordingly, I shall ask the Congress to:

• provide that through an orderly transition period all deposit interest rates be permitted to rise to market-rate levels. This will be subject to emergency action on the part of the responsible regulators if the safety and soundness of financial institutions is threatened or the implementation of monetary. policy so requires;

• grant the power to offer variable rate mortgages to all Federally-chartered savings institutions, subject to appropriate consumer safeguards. This authority, which would be phased in, would permit thrifts the earnings flexibility to pay competitive rates throughout the business cycle;

• permit all Federally-chartered savings institutions to invest up to 10% of their assets on consumer loans; and

• permit all Federally-insured institutions to offer interest-bearing transaction accounts to individuals.

These steps will bring the benefits of market rates to consumers, promote a steadier flow of mortgage credit and improve the efficiency of the financial markets.

In the interim, I support the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the National Credit Union Administration to take steps to increase the interest rates payable to small savers. I urge them to pursue the direction begun with authorization of the six-month money market certificate, with the goal of increasing the responsiveness of the interest rate ceilings to market rates.

JIMMY CARTER

The White House,

May 22, 1979.