Thread: Massive financial reform bill passes...no one knows what it in it.

It's a step in the right direction.
It restores a lot of what worked in the past, the entire moderate wing of the Republican Party voted for the bill, that should tell you something.

Massive reform bill passes...no one knows what it in it.

Again...

Originally Posted by goober

It's a step in the right direction.
It restores a lot of what worked in the past, the entire moderate wing of the Republican Party voted for the bill, that should tell you something.

It is? Could you please tell me what's in it and what it's general purpose is?

More payoffs to the union thugs...

The financial reform bill expected to clear Congress this week is chock-full of provisions that have little to do with the financial crisis but cater to the long-standing agendas of labor unions and other Democratic interest groups.

Principal among them is a measure to make it easier for unions, environmental groups and other activist organizations that hold shares to put their representatives on the boards of directors of every corporation in the United States.

Finance bill favors interests of unions, activists - Washington Times

This bill is a job killer...

Originally Posted by goober

It's a step in the right direction.
It restores a lot of what worked in the past, the entire moderate wing of the Republican Party voted for the bill, that should tell you something.

Yes Goober, what specifically is a step in the right direction?
And please provide detailed information including what is in the bill that could offset the "true" outcome of a provision that has pages of loopholes.

And please speak about some of the caveats in detail, and what is in the bill to deal with any possibilities unforseen.

I won't hold my breath.

Oh and one more thing Goober...please tell us how leaving out Fannie and Freddie was the "right direction".
And how exempting the entire auto industry from "consumer protection" laws to prevent fraudulent and confusing language is a step in the right direction?
And while your at it...it also does not address ludicrous lending practices that enabled banks to loan virtually anyone who is still breathing a mortgage loan that is 10 times their annual income..then sell the loan as quick as possible to F&F..and then when the loan defaults..the taxpayers foot the bill...would it not be a step in the right direction to deal with that?

And ask yourself Goober...why did some of THE top financial institutions WANT the bill to pass??? What planet do we live on where the people who committed the crimes against us all - WANT a bill that is supposed to keep them from doing it again??...unless...

2300 pages but hey we did something!!!!!!!

there lost they didn't do, ala HC waiting for the bodies they gave the power to to create the rules and of course, as I am said not a word on F&F....

for any who cares, read if you like....

The Uncertainty Principle
Dodd-Frank will require at least 243 new federal rule-makings.

So Republicans Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins now say they'll provide the last crucial votes to get the Dodd-Frank financial reform through the Senate. Hmmm. Could this be Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's secret plan to take back the Senate, guaranteeing another year or two of regulatory and lending uncertainty and thus slower economic growth?

Probably not, but that still may be the practical effect. This week White House aides leaked to the press that President Obama may seek a review of regulations that are restraining business confidence and bank lending. Yet Dodd-Frank, with its 2,300 pages, will unleash the biggest wave of new federal financial rule-making in three generations. Whatever else this will do, it will not make lending cheaper or credit more readily available.

In a recent note to clients, the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell needed more than 150 pages merely to summarize the bureaucratic ecosystem created by Dodd-Frank. As the nearby table shows, the lawyers estimate that the law will require no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies.

The SEC alone, whose regulatory failures did so much to contribute to the panic, will write 95 new rules. The new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will write 24, and the new Financial Stability Oversight Council will issue 56. These won't be one-page orders. The new rules will run into the hundreds if not thousands of pages in the Federal Register, laying out in detail what your neighborhood banker, hedge fund manager or derivatives trader can and cannot do.

As the Davis Polk wonks put it, "U.S. financial regulators will enter an intense period of rule-making over the next 6 to 18 months, and market participants will need to make strategic decisions in an environment of regulatory uncertainty." The lawyers needed 26 pages of flow charts merely to illustrate the timeline for implementing the new rules, the last of which will be phased in after a mere 12 years.

Because Congress abdicated its responsibility to set clear rules of the road, the lobbying will only grow more intense after the President signs Dodd-Frank. According to the attorneys, "The legislation is complicated and contains substantial ambiguities, many of which will not be resolved until regulations are adopted, and even then, many questions are likely to persist that will require consultation with the staffs of the various agencies involved."

In other words, the biggest financial players aren't being punished or reined in. The only certain result is that they are being summoned to a closer relationship with Washington in which the best lobbyists win, and smaller, younger firms almost always lose. New layers of regulation will deter lending at least in the near term, and they are sure to raise the cost of credit. Non-blue chip businesses will suffer the most as the financial industry tries to influence the writing of the rules while also figuring out how to make a buck in the new system.

The timing of Dodd-Frank could hardly be worse for the fragile recovery. A new survey by the Vistage consulting group of small and midsize company CEOs finds that "uncertainty" about the economy is by far the most significant business issue they face. Of the more than 1,600 CEOs surveyed, 87% said the federal government doesn't understand the challenges confronting American companies.

Believe it or not, Mr. Frank has already promised a follow-up bill to fix the mistakes Congress is making in this one. In a recent all-night rewrite session, he and Mr. Dodd made a particular mess of the derivatives provisions. They now say they didn't really mean to force billions of dollars in new collateral payments from industrial companies on existing contracts that present no systemic risk. But that's precisely what the regulators could demand under the current language, and the courts will ultimately decide when everyone sues after the new rules are issued.

Taxpayers might naturally ask why legislators don't simply draft a better bill now. But for Democrats the current and only priority is to pass something they can claim whacks the banks and which they can hail as another "achievement" to sell before the elections.

More remarkable is that a handful of Republicans are enabling this regulatory mess. Mr. Brown and Ms. Collins say they now favor Dodd-Frank because Congressional negotiators agreed to drop the bank tax. But lawmakers didn't drop the bank tax. They only altered the timing and manner of its collection. Instead of immediately assessing a tax on large financial companies to pay for future bailouts, the final version simply authorizes the bailouts to occur first. The money to pay for them will then be collected via a tax on the remaining firms.

Because this tax will be collected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, even opponents of the bill have viewed it as part of an insurance system. It isn't. Insurance is when you pay a premium and the insurance company agrees to replace your house if it burns down. A tax is when you pay the government and then the government decides which houses it wants to replace when there is a fire in the neighborhood.

Under Dodd-Frank, if Firm A pays to cover the cost of the last bailout, there's no guarantee that the FDIC will rescue its creditors if Firm A fails in the future. This is fundamentally different from traditional deposit insurance, which guarantees the same deal for every bank customer. Dodd-Frank allows the FDIC to discriminate among creditors at its discretion.

This transfer of wealth is a tax by any reasonable definition, borne by the customers, shareholders and employees of the companies ordered to pay it. Is this how Mr. Brown plans to reward the tea partiers who carried him to victory last winter in Massachusetts? Is this the key to a small business rebound in Maine?

A good definition of a bad law is one that its authors are rewriting even before they pass it. The only jobs Dodd-Frank will create are in Washington—and in law firms like Davis Polk.

The Uncertainty Principle - WSJ.com

Originally Posted by Imperator

2300 pages but hey we did something!!!!!!!

there lost they didn't do, ala HC waiting for the bodies they gave the power to to create the rules and of course, as I am said not a word on F&F....

for any who cares, read if you like....

The Uncertainty Principle
Dodd-Frank will require at least 243 new federal rule-makings.

So Republicans Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins now say they'll provide the last crucial votes to get the Dodd-Frank financial reform through the Senate. Hmmm. Could this be Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's secret plan to take back the Senate, guaranteeing another year or two of regulatory and lending uncertainty and thus slower economic growth?

Probably not, but that still may be the practical effect. This week White House aides leaked to the press that President Obama may seek a review of regulations that are restraining business confidence and bank lending. Yet Dodd-Frank, with its 2,300 pages, will unleash the biggest wave of new federal financial rule-making in three generations. Whatever else this will do, it will not make lending cheaper or credit more readily available.

In a recent note to clients, the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell needed more than 150 pages merely to summarize the bureaucratic ecosystem created by Dodd-Frank. As the nearby table shows, the lawyers estimate that the law will require no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies.

The SEC alone, whose regulatory failures did so much to contribute to the panic, will write 95 new rules. The new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will write 24, and the new Financial Stability Oversight Council will issue 56. These won't be one-page orders. The new rules will run into the hundreds if not thousands of pages in the Federal Register, laying out in detail what your neighborhood banker, hedge fund manager or derivatives trader can and cannot do.

As the Davis Polk wonks put it, "U.S. financial regulators will enter an intense period of rule-making over the next 6 to 18 months, and market participants will need to make strategic decisions in an environment of regulatory uncertainty." The lawyers needed 26 pages of flow charts merely to illustrate the timeline for implementing the new rules, the last of which will be phased in after a mere 12 years.

Because Congress abdicated its responsibility to set clear rules of the road, the lobbying will only grow more intense after the President signs Dodd-Frank. According to the attorneys, "The legislation is complicated and contains substantial ambiguities, many of which will not be resolved until regulations are adopted, and even then, many questions are likely to persist that will require consultation with the staffs of the various agencies involved."

In other words, the biggest financial players aren't being punished or reined in. The only certain result is that they are being summoned to a closer relationship with Washington in which the best lobbyists win, and smaller, younger firms almost always lose. New layers of regulation will deter lending at least in the near term, and they are sure to raise the cost of credit. Non-blue chip businesses will suffer the most as the financial industry tries to influence the writing of the rules while also figuring out how to make a buck in the new system.

The timing of Dodd-Frank could hardly be worse for the fragile recovery. A new survey by the Vistage consulting group of small and midsize company CEOs finds that "uncertainty" about the economy is by far the most significant business issue they face. Of the more than 1,600 CEOs surveyed, 87% said the federal government doesn't understand the challenges confronting American companies.

Believe it or not, Mr. Frank has already promised a follow-up bill to fix the mistakes Congress is making in this one. In a recent all-night rewrite session, he and Mr. Dodd made a particular mess of the derivatives provisions. They now say they didn't really mean to force billions of dollars in new collateral payments from industrial companies on existing contracts that present no systemic risk. But that's precisely what the regulators could demand under the current language, and the courts will ultimately decide when everyone sues after the new rules are issued.

Taxpayers might naturally ask why legislators don't simply draft a better bill now. But for Democrats the current and only priority is to pass something they can claim whacks the banks and which they can hail as another "achievement" to sell before the elections.

More remarkable is that a handful of Republicans are enabling this regulatory mess. Mr. Brown and Ms. Collins say they now favor Dodd-Frank because Congressional negotiators agreed to drop the bank tax. But lawmakers didn't drop the bank tax. They only altered the timing and manner of its collection. Instead of immediately assessing a tax on large financial companies to pay for future bailouts, the final version simply authorizes the bailouts to occur first. The money to pay for them will then be collected via a tax on the remaining firms.

Because this tax will be collected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, even opponents of the bill have viewed it as part of an insurance system. It isn't. Insurance is when you pay a premium and the insurance company agrees to replace your house if it burns down. A tax is when you pay the government and then the government decides which houses it wants to replace when there is a fire in the neighborhood.

Under Dodd-Frank, if Firm A pays to cover the cost of the last bailout, there's no guarantee that the FDIC will rescue its creditors if Firm A fails in the future. This is fundamentally different from traditional deposit insurance, which guarantees the same deal for every bank customer. Dodd-Frank allows the FDIC to discriminate among creditors at its discretion.

This transfer of wealth is a tax by any reasonable definition, borne by the customers, shareholders and employees of the companies ordered to pay it. Is this how Mr. Brown plans to reward the tea partiers who carried him to victory last winter in Massachusetts? Is this the key to a small business rebound in Maine?

A good definition of a bad law is one that its authors are rewriting even before they pass it. The only jobs Dodd-Frank will create are in Washington—and in law firms like Davis Polk.

The Uncertainty Principle - WSJ.com

I am willing to bet that the average liberal has absolutely no clue what this means for business, and by extension, what it means to his 401-k that is too heavily weighted in equities.

Oh and Goober...please tell us how it is sound to have the SEC, whose culpability in the mess is immeasurable, be the right agency, without any meaningful personnel or department changes at all, to write the largesse of the new laws?

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Once again this current government passes a massive bill (this one 2300 pages).
And admittedly those voting for it - do not know what is in it.
A startling quote I heard today..goes like this.."we will have commissions going over this for the next year trying to figure out how and what effects this will have, and how to enforce rules that are not understood".

Also - it contains not one provision..none..nada..zip...that addresses the mortgage crises.
Nothing. It does not in any way affect Fannie and Freddie...two largesse contributers to the meltdown.
Consumer protection for loans?? Think again. The entire auto industry is exempt...gee...what a coincidence...no conflict of interest there right?

Once again a massive bill is passed, that none have read and no one understands.
Just in time for the elections.

Senate passes massive bank reform bill - Washington Times

If it didn't restore, and restore completely, Glassman-Steagle, it's worthless dreck.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

If it didn't restore, and restore completely, Glassman-Steagle, it's worthless dreck.

Well at least you are willing to mention it.
It is indeed interesting to see all of the people who believe this mess is due to the repeal of said...has done nothing to restore it. If that isn't food for thought...well...

its another pick the winner game, if you are a medium size bank and the balloon goes up, you're fucked, the big boys get the gold, you get the shaft.

As dodd said ala Pelosi, we'll see whats in it when it goes into effect...whatever.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

If it didn't restore, and restore completely, Glassman-Steagle, it's worthless dreck.

I must give you proppage here.