Biggest US banks in senator's sights Sherrod Brown has been feeling optimistic. The gruff-voiced senator from Ohio is trying to push a law through Congress that would put an end to the "too big to fail" problem. In effect, it would force a break-up of America's six biggest banks by assets: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Mr Brown has tried this before - and failed. In the spring of 2010, with Democratic majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, memories of the despised bank bailout still fresh and voters" hatred of Wall Street near record levels, he tried to advance a similar bill. It failed in the Senate by a vote of 61 to 33. Since then, the scales have only tipped in favour of the banks. Memories of the bailouts have faded, Republicans control the House and some Democrats in the Senate have begun to pressure regulators to ease the very financial rules Congress called for just two years earlier. And yet Mr Brown still feels his idea - forcibly restructuring America's largest financial institutions - has a better shot this time. "There's more sympathy now than in 2010," Mr Brown told the Financial Times. I am confident that we will see the government over time requiring some divesting of assets because if [big banks] keep getting an advantage in the marketplace, and they keep growing and having a higher percentage of assets, it's basically a government-endowed advantage. Thank you, US taxpayers. The left-leaning Mr Brown is one of an increasing number of US legislators, policy makers and private sector executives who are calling for an overhaul of the biggest banks. Perhaps surprisingly in politically divided America, support for ending "too big to fail" has gained adherents on the left and right. And the subject has been given more oxygen since JPMorgan revealed a $2bn trading loss this month. Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has suggested a cap on bank assets of $100bn. Like some of his colleagues, he is unnerved by the fact that most of the big US banks got bigger after the financial crisis. Perversely, these banks are now even bigger. They are "too bigger to fail" than before," Mr Fisher said earlier this year. What they say: The Fed chiefs advocating reform At what point do you reach a size you don't know what's going on beneath you? And if you get to that point, you're too late. Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, May 2012. They are "too bigger to fail" than before." Fisher, February, 2012 My preference is for ... an international accord to break up these institutions into ones of more manageable size. And this should be done before the next financial crisis because it surely cannot be done in the middle of a crisis. Fisher, March 2010 I believe the first and most important step that we can take is to eliminate TBTF policies ... With the help of bailouts, Tarp money, the discount window, accommodative monetary policy and other actions, our largest institutions not only survived the crisis, but in many cases, emerged as even larger players in the financial system. Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, April 2012 One simple example of these advantages is that the five largest US banking organisations in June 2009 were given ratings on their senior long-term bank debt that on average were four notches higher than what they would have received based on their actual condition alone. One of these organisations even received an eight-notch upgrade for being TBTF. In a very competitive marketplace, such advantages are enormous and highly unfair to those institutions not receiving them. George, April 2012 I would back my colleague Richard Fisher in saying that we should split up the largest banks ... It would be simpler to have smaller institutions so that they could fail if they need to fail. James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, May 17 2012 "I do kind of agree that "too big to fail" is "too big to exist." The only thing that's making me hesitate about that are the details about how you would split up firms [and] why would you make them split up one way as opposed to another way. Bullard, June 2010 Thomas Hoenig, vice-chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, wants banks to shed their broker-dealer and trading units as long as they have access to cheap funding from the Fed and taxpayer-subsidised deposit insurance. Some congressional Republicans have previously supported legislation to break-up America's biggest banks. Richard Shelby, the ranking member on the Senate banking committee, voted for Mr Brown's bill in 2010. John McCain, who ran for president against Barack Obama in 2008, introduced measures during the Dodd-Frank reform debate that would have separated commercial banks from investment banks. "The Republican response to Dodd-Frank's overkill is to break up the banks," said Jaret Seiberg, a Washington analyst for Guggenheim Securities, referring to the 2010 reform law that is disliked by Republicans and Wall Street. The far left also wants to break up the big banks. Mr Brown's bill, which has just three cosponsors in a chamber of 100 senators, would force the six biggest US banks to shed assets and exit businesses. Brad Miller, a House Democrat from Bank of America's home state of North Carolina, has introduced a companion House version of Mr Brown's bill. "There is a real chance this legislation could pass," Mr Miller said. But he notes that the bills face steep odds. Still, "it has become much more part of the debate in terms of what has to happen" to make the US financial system safer, Mr Miller said. The big banks - who argue that large, globalised companies need the services they offer - have lobbied hard against such measures. But the Obama administration has not supported the idea either, Mr Brown said. In the past, Treasury department officials have played down the risks posed by large financial institutions, and have argued that Dodd-Frank will prod big banks to become smaller due to higher capital charges and strict liquidity rules. A senior Obama administration official this week noted that he did not see a correlation between sound risk management and the size of an institution, countering claims made by policy makers such as Mr Hoenig who argue that executives at large financial institutions are ill-equipped to effectively manage their banks. Mr Brown remains hopeful that his fellow lawmakers will join his cause. Recently, two senators - one Republican and one Democrat - approached him about their votes against his bill in 2010. The Democrat admitted he had made a mistake, Mr Brown recounted. The Republican was not so sure he had erred in voting against Mr Brown's bill, but he promised that he would re-evaluate his position. Speaking of his current bill, the Republican told Mr Brown: "This looks a lot better."