Wall Street put its money on a Romney victory but, alas, was sorely disappointed. Looking at the manner in which big bank stocks dropped post-election, it seems like investors felt the same way.
Oh, well. Now, dreams of repealed regulatory restrictions on profits are just that, and big banks must learn to make nice with a president who, without the burden of another White House run on his mind, might be less inclined to compromise on issues affecting "fat cats."
But, the election also saw Massachusetts' Elizabeth Warren ascend to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's former office -- most recently occupied by Scott Brown. With her unabashed attachment to liberal values and lack of sympathy for Wall Street, I would suggest that she will be more of a threat to the biggest banks than even Obama.
A defender of the average consumer
Many know Warren as the driving force behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which banks dislike intensely and had hoped to undermine if Romney won the White House.
Indeed, as an article in Forbes notes, she and the CFPB were instrumental in getting foreclosure fraud suspects JPMorgan Chase (NYS: JPM) , Bankof America (NYS: BAC) , Citigroup (NYS: C) , Wells Fargo (NYS: WFC) and Ally Financial to cough up $20 billion more than they bargained for in a settlement earlier this year. Except for Ally, all of the other banks were in the top 20 list of campaign donors for the Romney campaign.
Then, again, her activism on behalf of taxpayers as Chair of the Troubled Asset Relief Program probably didn't garner her any points with the big guys, either.
With this bit of tension already in the air, Warren began trumpeting -- even before the election -- her desire to see Glass-Steagall reinstated in law if current regulations can't rein in the big banks. Not only does she think breaking up the big banks is a good idea, but she has also called on Jamie Dimon, the charismatic CEO of JPMorgan, to resign his seat at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Is she powerful enough to pull it off?
Warren is a strong personality, and many feel that her well-known consumer-defense, anti-TBTF bank background is responsible for her victory over Brown. Conservatives don't like her, but she may very well be able to rally the troops for more bank-bashing once she gets her land legs in Washington.
There's no doubt in my mind that a woman who has been put in charge of two such important financial commissions will not be ignored, even if what she has to say doesn't please Wall Street. Combined with an Obama win, the whole discussion on breaking up and reining in the banks will surely be on tap very soon. It's enough to make big banks wish they'd sent their money to the other camp.
B of A certainly has some issues to deal with, but it actually appears to be gaining ground. To learn more about the most-talked-about bank out there, check out our in-depth company report on Bank of America. The report details Bank of America's prospects, including three reasons to buy and three reasons to sell. Just click here to get access.
The article Who Should the Big Banks Fear the Most? It's Not Obama originally appeared on Fool.com.
Fool contributor Amanda Alix has no positions in the stocks mentioned above. The Motley Fool owns shares of Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. Motley Fool newsletter services recommend Wells Fargo. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.