.....Snippet info: The Consumer Agency
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a core creation of Dodd-Frank, would be significantly overhauled by the bill. The
bureau would be restructured as an executive-branch agency with a single director who could be removed at will by the president. Right now, the director — currently Richard Cordray — can be removed only for cause.
Richard Cordray, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Credit Brennan Linsley/Associated Press
The legislation would also strip the agency of its supervisory and examination authority. It would also remove the bureau’s authority to police “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices.” Under the plan, the agency would lose its oversight of the payday loans market and arbitration agreements — two areas where it has sought reforms. The bureau would be renamed the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/how-house-bill-would-dismantle-an-array-of-dodd-frank-reforms.htmlOtherwise, it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, eh?
Regards,
Catch
Comments
Regards,
Ted
>> I'm a Yay !!!!
and why is that?
As a political independent, mark my words: When the GFC 2.0 hits, Congress will wring their hands and hold hearings asking "how could this happen?" Lather, rinse, repeat --- they've learned nothing except how to better pander to their big campaign contributors.
Right on. (But Ted styles himself as the little guy sometimes.)
imho, it comes down to (pro's) make financial institutions richer which may help the economy grow and in turn help the little guy now or (con's) increasing a likelihood the economy collapse again along with unfettered financial institution abuse destroying the little guy in time.
Maybe like most ideas, Dodd-Frank needed to be adjusted, not repealed.
A few things I found on zikher.com:
Pros of the repeal include:
- Increasing the profit-making ability of financial firms:
- Regulations will no longer harm competitiveness of U.S. financial firms compared to their foreign counterparts
- Individual institutions are less safe without the constraints, but the regulations made for a more illiquid market overall
- There will be no need to maintain regulatory compliance, which will lift the burdens of smaller banks and community banks (even though these smaller financial institutions played no part in the 2008 recession).
- There will be lower reserve requirements, since banks can hold a lower percentage of their assets in cash, increasing the amount they’re able to hold in marketable securities. This allows unlimited bond market-making roles that banks have done traditionally, allowing banks to play the part of the market-maker. This enables prospective buyers to have an easier time finding counteracting sellers, and prospective sellers can have an easier time finding counteracting buyers.
Cons of the repeal include:
- Repealing the act will not prevent a re-occurrence similar to the 2008 crisis.
- Consumers will not be protected by abuses that contributed to the 2008 crisis.
- Each individual’s institution is less safe without the capital constraints that Dodd-Frank imposed: there was a whistleblower program that rewarded whisteblowers with 10-30% of proceeds from a litigation settlement, covered more employees by including employees of the company along with its affiliates and subsidiaries, and extended the statute of limitations for a whistleblower to bring a claim against his employers for 90-180 days after a violation is claimed
As you noted above is the sizable cash requirement to prevent another crisis of "Too Big to Fail". The taxpayers will be on the hook again if this requirement is removed.
The repeal also includes defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Can you say here we go again with subprime mortgages and now the car loans.
There is also talk of bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, but the WH really means something else.
I don't know about your loop, but key ACA precepts were out of the rightwing Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Romney in Mass., all the while loudly touted and analyzed as classic conservative-values solutions. Individual mandate on heads of household, etc., blah blah. Look it up.
Much repudiated or half-repudiated by rightwingers ever since. Years of yeah-buts. Scrambling as bad as that following trickledown failure. (Norquist just comically said 'Kansas is not the model' --- this after saying 'Kansas is the model' just a few years ago, bwahahahaha.)
See this from 6y ago, though there is better since.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/#409bb1c36187
The better analyses than this and more up to date are by economic and political historian types; just google.
Some would further argue that enforcing responsibility and solvency mandates on banks is also a profoundly conservative approach. In the old good-business senses, like customer fair dealings too. Certainly all of my Republican businessmen grandfathers and late father-in-law would have.
But that simply shows the death of true conservative principles today, so many of them anyway, drowned in rightwing automatic hatred of progressivism, kneejerk and without thoughtful thought, what I term Woodstock payback. Only destructive, nothing constructive. Yawn.