Next admin looking to kill FDIC, OCC, and other bank regulators.

Comments

• gman57

  December 12

  +1
• Crash

  December 12 edited December 12

  no joke. Like I've been saying, we are doomed. The voters have spoken. And they've given it to themselves right up where the sun don't shine. Smiling. Loving it, all the way. Oblivious. Clueless. Ignorant. Yes, that's a good word for the American voter.
• gman57

  December 12

  Heck, the banks can monitor themselves. We need another Lehman Bothers. Who didn't like "liar loans". This time it'll be sub-sub-sub prime mortgages!
• Old_Joe

  December 12 edited December 12

  However from that WSJ report:

  But FDIC deposit insurance is considered near sacred. Any move that threatened to undermine even the perception of deposit insurance could quickly ripple through banks and in a crisis might compound customer fears.
  
  After several banks failed last year, customers panicked about whether their deposits were safe at smaller banks. Many fled to the biggest of big banks who are perceived to be so important that the government would never let them fail. Since then, banks have been calling for wider deposit insurance protections to keep smaller banks competitive.

  (Text emphasis added)
  
  So I guess what the banks really want is to remove any constraints on how they run the place, but also to make sure the US Government (aka: Taxpayers) remains around to put the pieces back together.
  
  Hey, if I ran a bank... sounds good to me.
• yogibearbull

  December 13 edited December 13

  There is the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) now that is chaired by the Treasury Secretary and includes all of the important financial agencies that exist. Just folding everything into Treasury may make Treasury a super agency. That may or may not lead to cost savings or efficiencies.
  
  Real motivation may be to get rid of separate laws that govern these multiple agencies. If all were part of the Treasury, then just the Treasury Secretary (and of course, the President) can hire/fire those agency heads at will. They all become Treasury staffers.
  
  This may open a broader discussion of independent federal agencies - why they exist, should there be sunset laws for them, etc.
  https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/financial-stability-oversight-council/about-fsoc/council-members
  
  "The Council’s voting members are:
  
  The Secretary of the Treasury who serves as the Chairperson of the Council;
  The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
  The Comptroller of the Currency (OCC);
  The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB);
  The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
  The Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);
  The Chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC);
  The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA);
  The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); and
  An independent member with insurance expertise who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a six-year term.
  The Council’s nonvoting members, who serve in an advisory capacity, are:
  
  The Director of the Office of Financial Research;
  The Director of the Federal Insurance Office;
  A state insurance commissioner designated by the state insurance commissioners;
  A state banking supervisor designated by the state banking supervisors; and
  A state securities commissioner (or officer performing like functions) designated by the state securities commissioners.
  The state insurance commissioner, state banking supervisor, and state securities commissioner serve two-year terms"
• Crash

  December 13

  Do not think for a moment that with the Orange tong in charge that you and I will be protected.
• BaluBalu

  December 13

  I did not know these two existed and may be should be folded into the Treasury Dept.
  
  The Director of the Office of Financial Research;
  The Director of the Federal Insurance Office;
  
  Overlapping oversight / regulatory authority can be unproductive and businesses may be able to play one against the other, with no one taking responsibility when things go wrong. Think of Boeing.
  
  If FDIC and OCC are folded in, they should be into the Federal Reserve system and not the Treasury but we know that is not what Trump team wants.
• yogibearbull

  December 13 edited December 13

  Federal Insurance Office (FIO) is already a newer smallish unit within the Treasury. As much of the insurance regulation in the US is under the states, the FIO has no separate regulatory authority. But FIO (i) keeps tabs on insurance business, (ii) deals with international issues on insurance (typically beyond the sate insurance regulators), and, critically, (iii) advises the Treasury Secretary if the FDIC should get involved in the rescue of a failed insurer too big to be handled by the states and when that insurance failure may also lead to bank failures or cause systemic financial issues. One cannot expect the Treasury Secretary to make those decisions out of the blue, so FIO was created under Dodd-Frank in 2010.
  
  I don't see anything saved by trashing FIO under DOGE.
  
  https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/federal-insurance-office/about-fio
  https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/federal-insurance-office
• Anna

  December 13

  Does increasing the risk of runs on banks enhance the future prospects of crypocurrency? And, does crypocurrency require the designation of "legal tender"?
• rforno

  December 13

  Anna said:

  Does increasing the risk of runs on banks enhance the future prospects of crypocurrency? And, does crypocurrency require the designation of "legal tender"?

  I'm pretty sure the cryptobros and hardcore fans think it would. That's the whole idea behind it, being a shadow money-exchanging system that runs outside of the traditional banking system.
  
• BaluBalu

  December 13 edited December 13

  YBB,
  
  I suggested both FIO and OFR be folded into the Treasury department. It seems both of them already report into the Treasury department and those directors are appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
  
  That only leaves the following to screw around and i do not think any of them should be folded into the Treasury department, though I think each of them should be streamlined to eliminate overlapping functions, if any:
  
  The Comptroller of the Currency (OCC);
  The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB);
  The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
  The Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);
  The Chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC);
  The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA);
  
  Overtime, every department builds their own fiefdoms. That is what humans do. So, once in a while a fresh look at their functions is needed. Give them a good hair cut to resize.
  
  Change is necessary and should not be confused with chaos but some people just love car crashes and many that claim to be in favor of disruption are disguised anarchists or opportunists looking for personal benefits. Human history is full of people who gained power and personal prosperity based on claims of change and the common man turned out to be worse off each time.
  
  At the end of the day, everything boils down to quality of leadership. That is why I love companies with good CEO leadership - I do not care about Board of Directors if the CEO is good.
• WABAC

  December 13

  The OCC was created by Congress in 1863, and is already part of the Treasury Department. I'm guessing it would take an act of Congress to get rid of it, but with this Supreme Court, ya' never know.
  
  Apropos of nothing: My maternal grandfather was appointed to a position as a regional bank examiner for the OCC once Roosevelt and the D's swept in after 1932. I have copies of recommendation letters on his behalf describing him as a good hard-money Democrat in the Benton-Jackson vein. He would have been too young to vote, but his sympathies were with the Palmer-Buckner ticket in 1896.