Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Thursday, June 8, House vote to dismantle Dodd-Frank; Consumers, cover your arse......

.....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.html

Otherwise, it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, eh?
Regards,
Catch

Comments

  • @catch22: Are you an Yay or an Nay ? I'm a Yay !!!!
    Regards,
    Ted
  • @Ted

    >> I'm a Yay !!!!

    and why is that?
  • Because David, the sooner we go back to screwing over the little guy the sooner we'll be great again.
  • edited June 2017
    Good to see some action on this issue -- which gives us "little people" without our own SuperPACs or paid-for legislators plenty of time to begin planning for how we'll endure and/or exploit the (next) Greater Financial Crisis when these rules blow up the system again. We'll be the ones left standing and picking through the rubble for long-term bargains!

    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.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @Mark,
    Right on. (But Ted styles himself as the little guy sometimes.)
  • Im a DEfinate YAY!!!
  • edited June 2017
    I didn't know enough about the topic for a yea-ney, so with the magic of Google I tried to find the pro's and con's. Basically, to me, it just looks like a typical trump administration move to put long term caution aside for gains today. Give the banks the ability to loan unfettered to boost the economy (now) but enhance the prospect of economic collapse (later). Definitely a political trend on policy.

    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
  • @MikeM,
    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.
  • As with ACA, which from the getgo was a genuinely conservative solution in intents and details (personal responsibility and all that), the wholesale arguments against D-F are largely uninformed (polite term) and halfbaked. Frank himself, like ACA experts, readily advocates for the emendations and reworking of regs that are now clearly wiser steps to take. Indeed, such changes were in the works and would have remained so unto implementation but for the GOP house takeover 6y ago and their absolutism about repeal blah blah.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Just the former.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.