OVERNIGHT FINANCE: Warren vs. White House on trade

THE SCENE: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) doubled-down against President Obama’s still-as-of-yet unveiled trade proposal on a conference call with reporters earlier today. Just minutes after she offered a blistering critique with classic Warren rhetoric — i.e., easy to understand, folksy terms, accessible to a non-D.C. audience — the White House fired an email to reporters refuting criticisms progressives have lodged against the proposal.

We pick it up with trade talk….

TOMORROW STARTS TONIGHT: ON TRADE – – IT’S WARREN VS. WHITE HOUSE. My latest for the hometown paper: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is locking horns with the Obama administration over possible provisions in forthcoming trade proposals that she says could help multinational corporations at the expense of American workers. The administration hit back just minutes after Warren signed off a conference call with reporters, releasing information meant to show that President Obama’s proposal would increase transparency and protect workers’ rights.

{mosads}– PUNDIT PREP: DIVE INTO THE WEEDS: Wonks, you already know: This fight is all about a proposed provision in the bill that would create an international arbitration board that would settle trade disputes for businesses. In Washington, the proposed board is known as ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement,’ or ISDS. Bears repeating: Investor-State Dispute Settlement = ISDS. 

Let’s drink…

— SHOT, via Sen. Warren: “The name may sound a little wonky, but this is a powerful provision that would tilt the playing field for multinational corporations,” Warren told reporters on a conference call sponsored by the left-leaning Alliance for Justice. She did not take questions.

— CHASER, via a White House fact sheet emailed to reporters minutes after Warren finished speaking: “ISDS allows for neutral and transparent enforcement of a limited and clearly specified set of basic rights and protections already offered to U.S. and foreign investors alike under U.S. law. Story: http://bit.ly/1GsYZUv

THIS IS OVERNIGHT FINANCE and it’s only Wednesday. So chin up. Keep going. This is Washington D.C. Tweet: @kevcirilli; email: kcirilli@digital-release.thehill.com; and subscribe: http://digital-release.thehill.com/signup/48. 

WORTH WATCHING: I’ll be on with the Neil Cavuto tonight at 8 p.m. and again at 11 p.m. on Fox Business Network. We’re talking about the student loan crisis and youth financial literacy. Fox Business Network. Tonight. 

Speaking of youth financial literacy…

TELL YOUR KIDS TO OPEN AN IRA ACCOUNT. Bill Bischoff for MarketWatch: “Hey kids! Want a neat-o idea for how to use your summer job money? How about opening an individual retirement account? I know you might be more interested in having a little spending cash for the weekends or saving for a car. But saving for retirement can be cool, too. Right? Right? Um. 

“OK, I admit that convincing your kids to use their summer earnings to invest in an IRA is a pretty tough sell. But in all seriousness, it’s an excellent idea and one that might not be too outlandish if you encourage your child simply to allocate a portion of his or her earnings to the cause.” http://on.mktw.net/1Muaf73

FED STRESS TESTS RESULTS: WHO PASSED AND WHO FAILED? Douwe Miedema for Reuters: “Three major U.S. Wall Street banks had to scale back planned investor payouts after an annual check-up by the Federal Reserve, and two foreign banks failed the test altogether, a sign the Fed is keeping a tight lid on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co, all with large and risky trading operations, lowered their ambitions for dividends and share buybacks, the Fed said on Wednesday, to keep them robust enough to withstand a hypothetical financial crisis. 

“The revised plans allowed them to pass the Fed’s simulation of a severe recession. But the Fed rejected plans for the U.S. units of Deutsche Bank and Santander, in line with earlier media reports. The objection came even though both banks satisfied the Fed’s minimum capital requirements, since there were ‘widespread and substantial weaknesses across their capital planning processes,’ the Fed said.” http://reut.rs/1FbYjF0

ORRIN HATCH HITS FED ON TRANSPARENCY, Craig Torres scoops for Bloomberg: “U.S. lawmakers are stepping up pressure on Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and the central bank’s inspector general to share information on their investigations of a leak of confidential Fed policy discussions in 2012.

“Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) sent a letter to Yellen and Inspector General Mark Bialek on Wednesday requesting more information about their internal probes. Bloomberg News, which previously reported on the leak, obtained copies of the letters.” http://bloom.bg/1GsNBb4

READ THIS – – > REPORT: U.S. TAX CODE ENCOURAGES FOREIGN TAKEOVERS, John D. McKinnon scoops for WSJ: “Big businesses are gearing up to make the case for overhauling the U.S. tax system, armed with a new study arguing that it is encouraging foreign takeovers of American firms. The trend could lead to job losses and other harms, according to the study prepared for the Business Roundtable, a group of big-firm CEOs.

— THE BOTTOM LINE: “The findings – to be released as soon as Wednesday – are likely to fuel business demands that Congress rewrite U.S. tax rules. Businesses want Congress to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate, now the highest among developed countries at 35 percent. They also want to loosen the U.S. system’s unusual global reach.” http://on.wsj.com/1NJMdqh

HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL FALL OUT: CASE CLOSED? Democrats say it’s game over on the scandal. Jonathan Easley and Mike Lillis are all over this story: “Congressional Democrats are circling the wagons around former secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the face of escalating attacks from Republicans over her use of a personal email account in the Obama administration.” http://bit.ly/1MucDun

DEMS PITCH ANTI-INSIDER TRADING LAW, via Pete Schroeder: “Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced a bill that would explicitly define insider trading and make it illegal. Under current law, there is no statute that specifically bars making financial trades based on nonpublic inside information…

“Under their bill, a financial trade would be illegal if the person relied on information that he or she knew, or had reason to know, was not publicly available… Citing the same court ruling, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) introduced a similar insider trading ban in the House earlier this month.” http://bit.ly/1b2JdpQ

YELLEN MEETS SHELBY. What did Fed Chair Janet Yellen and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) talk about? “We had a candid and I’ll call it worthwhile discussion,” Shelby told reporters after the meeting. Kate Davidson for The Wall Street Journal: http://on.wsj.com/1BxMVQY

NOT THE ONION: Wall Street profits declined but bonuses increased in 2014, according a report from New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli released Wednesday. My quick hit: http://bit.ly/1EZhykE

EXPORT-IMPORT WATCH: HOCHBERG TO ALABAMA, via Michael Finch II for AL.com: “Fred P. Hochberg, chairman and president of the Export-Import Bank, will be in Mobile Thursday to speak at a symposium on international trade with U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne at the Renaissance Mobile Riverview Plaza Hotel and Spa.” http://bit.ly/1BxVtal

THE CASE AGAINST OBAMA’S FIDUCIARY STANDARDS: Francis Creighton, former senior Democratic Senate staffer, in an op-ed for The Hill: “President Obama and his administration are on a mission to ensure Americans are able to invest and save for retirement… It is a critically important mission. Simplifying the process and creating incentives to save are greatly needed… Nearly 60 percent of all Americans have less than $25,000 in their retirement accounts, a mere fraction of what they’ll likely need to retire comfortably in their golden years. It’s a growing problem that could impact American families, our economy and taxpayers down the road…

“We don’t want low and moderate income Americans to feel forced to ‘fend for themselves’ in planning and saving for retirement, relying on television commentators, coworkers or family for advice… That’s why we are so concerned about the administration moving forward with an overly-expansive rule on financial advice–rather than a surgical approach–to address specific harms. An overly expansive rule would have the perverse effect of making financial advice simply a tool only accessible to those with high balance accounts who can pay for individualized financial assistance up front and on an ongoing basis.” http://bit.ly/1NLGGzv

Write us with tips, suggestions and news: vneedham@digital-release.thehill.com; pschroeder@digital-release.thehill.com; bbecker@digital-release.thehill.com; rshabad@digital-release.thehill.com; kcirilli@digital-release.thehill.com.

–Follow us on Twitter: @VickofTheHill; @PeteSchroeder; @BernieBecker3; @RebeccaShabad and@kevcirilli.