As yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, President Barack Obama delivered a speech at New York City’s Federal Hall, urging Congress to pass stronger financial regulations in the coming year.

Obama started off by praising the “terrific leadership” of his administration during the past year, saying that the recovery plan has restored “capital and confidence” and assured that “the storms of the past two years are beginning to break.”

Blaming Wall Street’s “unchecked excess” for the crisis, the president urged that the U.S. economy needs “strong rules of the road to guard against … systemic risks” of the financial sector.

While Obama made no new policy proposals, he seeks to enact “the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression” and promote “transparency and accountability.”

He explained his plans for a new consumer-protection agency, called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, in order to enforce new rules and ensure that American consumers receive information that is clear and concise. The agency would have broad powers over home mortgages and other consumer loans, according to The New York Times.

While the Federal Reserve will still be accountable for the “largest, most inter-connected firms,” it will also establish an oversight council to tackle other issues “that don’t fit neatly into an organizational chart,” according to Obama.

In addition to urging Congress to enact regulatory reform, Obama also advised banks to enact reform on their own. He insisted that they simplify the language they use with consumers as well as overhaul their pay structures even before any legislation from Congress.

Obama concluded by expanding his scope to the international financial community, insisting that “As the United States is aggressively reforming our regulatory system, we will be working to ensure that the rest of the world does the same.”

Professors and students alike were decidedly skeptical about the president’s vague proposals for increased regulation of the financial sector.

Maureen O’Hara, the Robert W. Purcell Professor of Management, was pessimistic of Obama’s plans he laid out in yesterday’s speech.

“We’ve made relatively little progress in the last year addressing the systemic problems,” O'Hara said. “Huge problems still remain. [Obama] is blaming Wall Street, but I think we can blame Washington.”

“The banks took too much risk,” she said, “but regulations let them do it.”

Noting the lack of progress, O’Hara said that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency was proposed six months ago, “and we haven’t gotten anywhere.”

O’Hara attributes this slowness in economic reform to the fact that the president wanted to move onto healthcare and other issues.

“There were plans even before the collapse for overhauling back in the spring of 2008, then we had the collapse in the fall of 2008, and now it’s the fall of 2009 and we haven’t made progress in regulatory reform,” O'Hara said.

Prof. Karel Mertens, economics is also skeptical of Obama’s plans, but for different reasons.

“I think it is weak what they are proposing to do; business as usual,” Mertens said.

According to Mertens, the speech was vague and, despite Obama’s plans to regulate the big banks, there will still be banks that are “too big to fail,” she said.

“[Obama] could have done much more,” Mertens said, such as creating stricter down-payment requirements, regulating derivative markets, and regulating mortgage credit defaults.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is just air,” he said.

As for the future, Mertens said, “It’s unclear what will happen. My guess is not too much.”

Prof. Elizabeth Sanders, government, also agreed that the speech was not very powerful.

“It bothered me because it seemed to suggests that he wants to rely on voluntary reform, that he can somehow change the minds and hearts of [bank executives] and they’ll behave well.”

Addressing the politics of the situation, Sanders explained that the decision to push for financial regulatory reform after healthcare reform was a serious mistake, quite possibly the most serious mistake he’s made so far.

“To put it simply,” she said, “It was a big mistake not to take advantage of the wide disillusionment with the financial industry. He could’ve done [the reforms] in a bipartisan way. To have that victory, which would’ve been an important victory, he would’ve had success to build on which would’ve made healthcare easier…he would’ve legitimated a role for government.”

Prof. Eric Rauchway, history, University of California, Davis, and New Deal historian agreed.

“He didn’t really strike when the iron was hot,” Rauchway said. Whereas President Roosevelt pushed forward financial regulation soon after coming into office, Obama did not.

Upon further comparison, Rauchway explained, “Obama is in a worse position than Roosevelt was … When Roosevelt became president, the catastrophe had gotten so bad that there was really substantial bipartisan support for the financial overhaul. You don’t see Obama in that kind of position.”

“I think the moment for [bipartisan reform] has probably passed,” he said.

Christian Polman ’11, an applied eceonomics and management major, thought that “More regulative reform is necessary, but [the government] has to be careful how they do it. Banks are vital to the economy … the regulations might have an adverse effect.”

Chase Robinson ’10, also an AEM major, was pessimistic about government's efforts to halt business as usual.

“I don’t know if they’re going to do anything anyway,” he said. “People will find a way to manipulate [the system]. Something should be done.”

As for Cornellians hoping to enter the job market in banking, O’Hara said that the situation does not look good.

“Banking is not going to be a growth industry,” she said. “They’re scaling back, so job opportunities in banking are not going to be particularly strong.”