During the breakfast fundraiser there was one thing left unsaid, but something virtually everyone wanted to know: whether Schumer will seek the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee next Congress.

It’s an issue of intense interest in New York and Washington and one fraught with major implications for both Wall Street and the three-term Democrat’s political future.

( Also on POLITICO: Bernie Madoff speaks: Politics, remorse and Wall Street)

The choice will signify whether Schumer is aiming to recast his political career as Capitol Hill’s chief policymaker for his home-state industry — or is instead seeking to position himself as the next leader of a Senate Democratic Caucus that has railed against the excesses of Wall Street. And for the financial industry, it may mean having a chairman with a friendly ear — like Schumer — versus one who has gone to battle with the big banks, likely Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

Schumer refuses to say what he will do, but Wall Street executives and their Washington lobbyists say the senator and his associates have privately signaled he is not interested in the Banking Committee chairmanship and would not be receptive to pressure to take the job.

According to these people, Schumer does not want to be put in a position where any action he took to crack down on the financial services industry would hurt him with his deep-pocketed New Yorkers while any signal that he was going soft on Wall Street would hurt him with the ascendant progressive wing of the party.

“He’s reluctant to do it because it impedes his path to leader,” said a senior Wall Street executive who, like several others interviewed, asked not to be identified by name in order to speak candidly about Schumer.

( Also on POLITICO: Back when the Kochs gave to Democrats …)

Both Schumer and his spokesman declined to say anything about his thinking.

“I can’t comment on that,” Schumer, 63, said.

Brown, on the other hand, is eager for the opportunity to be chairman: “I’m interested, of course.”

The chatter comes at a critical time for the financial industry.

The Senate Banking Committee is beginning to engage in a high-stakes debate over winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giants at the center of the $10 trillion mortgage industry — and the fight is certain to spill into next Congress, as well. The outcome will impact a wide swath of the financial industry, including lenders, bond traders and mortgage insurers.

Moreover, big banks continue to face pressure — particularly from the left — over whether they remain “too big to fail” and need to be shrunk, or at least face a tougher set of standards, at a time when financial firms want to focus their lobbying on loosening up new rules put in place by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, not fend off new reforms.

That means the next Banking chairman will have huge influence over legislation that could dramatically affect practices of financial institutions of all sizes — as well as their bottom lines — while also having the ability to use hearings to set the tone for Washington’s relationship with Wall Street.

( Also on POLITICO: Chuck Schumer’s answer to the tea party’s rise)

With all this uncertainty, some Wall Street donors are beginning to consider amping up their donations to Republicans — rather than Democrats — in order to avoid having a Senate chairman constantly at war with the big banks.

“A lot of people on Wall Street would give a lot of money to avoid that outcome,” said one Democratic-leaning executive regarding Brown chairing the Banking Committee. “People are tired of all the show trials. So if giving to someone like Kay Hagan means you get Brown as chairman? No thanks.”

If Democrats lose the majority, a conservative Republican, potentially Mike Crapo of Idaho or Richard Shelby of Alabama, would be in line to run the panel.

The choice of Schumer vs. Brown comes down, in part, to a game of congressional musical chairs.

Current Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) is retiring. Jack Reed of Rhode Island is next in line, but he is expected to become the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. “No comment,” Reed said when asked about his intentions.

Next up is Schumer. If he passes, the gavel would go to Robert Menendez of New Jersey, but he is expected to hold on to his spot atop the Foreign Relations Committee. “I’m focused on my job right now,” said Menendez.

( Also on POLITICO: Full finance policy coverage)

That leaves Brown.

While Schumer generally remains a quiet public presence on the committee, Brown has used his roster spot as a platform to rail against Wall Street banks and pressure regulators to take a tougher stand.

“I think Democrats find the power of Wall Street, the economic power and political power a little unsettling,” Brown said. “And I think that sentiment is growing, not just with the financial crisis, but what’s happened since. In terms of the fines, the salaries and bonuses, there hasn’t been much contrition from Wall Street.”

Last year Brown teamed up with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) on a bill to require the largest banks to meet much tougher capital requirements, which determine how they fund their businesses. The bill didn’t gain much traction, but the industry took it seriously enough to put its lobbying machine into overdrive to beat back the proposal.

Brown has also used his subcommittee chairmanship to press his case that big banks shouldn’t play a large role in commodity markets for such things as metals and energy, arguing it leads to higher costs for consumers. This has put pressure on regulators who in turn have put pressure on banks.

On Wednesday, JPMorgan Chase sold its commodities business.

Brown’s efforts have won him the strong support of consumer groups and Wall Street critics, who are also quick to push back on any idea he’s on a witch hunt against the broader financial industry.

For instance, Brown has taken the lead on a top priority for the insurance industry — getting its new regulator the Federal Reserve to write funding rules tailored to its business model rather than based on how the central bank treats banks.

Most senators would jump at the chance to have direct oversight of their hometown industry, but Schumer is not like most senators.

The New York Democrat, who currently holds the No. 3 position in his party’s leadership, is widely seen as the successor to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — and he would be running a caucus that has grown increasingly hostile toward Wall Street.

But Senate insiders say that if Schumer were to take the chairman post and carry the water for his allies on Wall Street, his standing would slip with the vocal liberal wing of his caucus — giving a leg up to either Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin or Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the fourth-highest-ranking Democrat — in the jockeying to replace Reid. And that would undermine all the work Schumer has done in the past several years building his power and strengthening his relationships within his caucus — while dealing delicately with Wall Street and using it as a major source of campaign cash.

Schumer has voted against Wall Street priorities. Though he wasn’t a vocal supporter of Dodd-Frank, Schumer ultimately voted for the law, a position that drew the ire of then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the financial community. He also has backed higher taxes for private equity executives. Democrats, including Schumer, have made raising taxes on millionaires and touting income inequality a favorite campaign weapon.

But Schumer has also shown support for many of his Wall Street allies. He’s been critical of the sharp-edged rhetoric lobbed by the White House and his Democratic colleagues against bankers, and he’s recently pushed for a delay in Commodity Futures Trading Commission swap trading rules.

The difference between Schumer and his more progressive colleagues was on display at a recent hearing with nominees for the Fed board.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said she was worried about the nomination of Stanley Fischer to become Fed vice chair because of his three-year stint as a senior executive with Citigroup, the onetime workplace for several top administration economic officials.

“The connection between Citigroup and Democratic administrations really sticks out — I think it’s dangerous if our government falls under the grip of a tight-knit group connected to one institution,” she said.

But Schumer was quick to come to Fischer’s defense, saying “three years at Citibank, I think, should be an asset rather than a liability.”

This middle-ground approach has endeared him to some on Wall Street, even though others want their New York senator to be a more aggressive defender of the industry. But if he became chairman of the panel, it would be much harder for Schumer to engage in this balancing act.

“Most importantly he doesn’t want to have to be chairman because he knows Wall Street will come to him to protect them,” said one Senate source who knows Schumer well. “That puts him in a bad spot.”

As Democratic leader Schumer would be in position to have great influence on issues impacting Wall Street, as well as almost anything else he chose, but he could pick his spots more easily than if he was at the committee’s helm.

In some ways, Schumer is boxed in for the immediate future largely because Reid has no plans to go anywhere and the Senate Democratic Caucus still is supportive of the Nevada Democrat. In a recent interview, Reid made clear he plans to stay as Democratic leader — no matter the outcome of this fall’s elections — and will also seek reelection in 2016.

“Sure,” Reid said when asked if he would remain leader next Congress, “as long as my caucus wants me.”

For Schumer the question is to wait on Reid or move on and take the Banking gavel. Many on Wall Street are betting on wait.

“Why would he do it?” said a senior Wall Street executive who has deep connections in Washington. “Right now he can make promises to us without ever having to actually deliver anything. He is in the perfect spot.”

Anna Palmer and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.