Congress Passes Overhaul of Financial Regulations

Jeffg010

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2008
3,435
1
0
I work for a bank and on the front page of our intraweb there was a write up of the changes. Seeing how this is the biggest change since the Great Depression thought it would be interesting to post here.

"Congress has approved the biggest overhaul of financial industry regulations since the Great Depression, and President Obama soon will sign the bill into law.

The bill was passed by the House on June 30 and the Senate on July 15, following the agreement of a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the bills passed by each chamber earlier this year.

After the president signs the bill into law, it will move into the regulatory stage. Regulators must draft, review and approve more than 200 regulations to comply with the new law. The process could take up to two years.

Here are the main points of the bill:

Volcker rule: Banks are prohibited from engaging in some types of proprietary trading. Banks will be restricted in their ability to sponsor or invest in private equity or hedge funds.

Interchange fee: The Federal Reserve will set debit card interchange fees. The Fed will be required to consider the cost of protecting against fraud when determining whether fees are “reasonable and proportional,” and merchants will be allowed to offer discounts for certain payment types.

Preemption: States will be allowed to impose consumer protection laws on national banks if the state laws are stricter than federal laws. The Comptroller of the Currency may preempt state laws if they "prevent or significantly" interfere with the business of banking.

Derivatives: Banks may continue using derivatives to hedge their own risk, but some other derivatives business must be moved to separately capitalized subsidiaries of holding companies.

Federal Reserve oversight: An audit of the Fed's emergency lending programs developed in response to the financial crisis will be required. For the first time, the Fed also will disclose, with a two-year lag, details of loans it makes to banks through its discount window and open market transactions. Bankers who serve as directors of Federal Reserve Banks will no longer participate in the election of presidents of those banks.

Capital: Holding companies with more than $15 billion in total assets will have five years to exclude trust preferred securities and other financial instruments from holding company tier 1 capital. The requirement includes a three-year phase-in period.

Deposit insurance: Deposit insurance will be permanently increased to $250,000 for each eligible account, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008, and the Transaction Guarantee Program will be extended through 2012. The assessment base will be changed to assets minus tangible capital

Investor protection: The SEC is empowered to adopt a variety of new rules to protect investors, including the authority to impose a fiduciary standard of care on broker-dealers who provide investment advice.

Other provisions of the legislation also will affect: oversight, including the elimination of the Office of Thrift Supervision; the thrift charter, which will be preserved; business checking, which banks may pay interest on; risk retention for securitizations; accounting oversight; and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s auditor requirements."
 
Last edited:

joebloggs10

Member
Apr 20, 2010
153
0
0
I'll see if I can dig it up, but I saw an article yesterday linked through Yahoo! news or Google news in which the author sat down with an ex-regulator who now works for the industry. The gist of the article was that noone knows all of what's in the bill (just like health care), but from what the industry does know so far they have already figured out how to beat every single regulation.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I'll see if I can dig it up, but I saw an article yesterday linked through Yahoo! news or Google news in which the author sat down with an ex-regulator who now works for the industry. The gist of the article was that noone knows all of what's in the bill (just like health care), but from what the industry does know so far they have already figured out how to beat every single regulation.

Impossible for them to know how to "beat every single regulation" when in fact the regulations will be promulgated by regulators after the bill has been signed into law. They probably think they can get around the broad restrictions which are in the bill, but as to the actual specific regulations, they don't exist yet.

- wolf
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,911
6,790
126
I figure the banks will stop lending to further destroy the economy on the bet that more disaster will return Republicans to power who will lift the regulations so the banks can go back to the full fucking of the American people.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,477
12,607
136
I figure the banks will stop lending to further destroy the economy on the bet that more disaster will return Republicans to power who will lift the regulations so the banks can go back to the full fucking of the American people.

It's like a self fufilling wish with these clowns. It's funny how the economy almost always does better when the Democrats are in charge.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81

Ahh, a huffington post link telling me how democrats are better. Thanks for another laugh.



If you really think Democrats are always amazing at economics, you are bitterly partisan or just plain dumb. There have been good economies with democrats at the helm, and there have been some stinkers. The same can be said for Republicans as well.

Dont let me take off those blinders though, keep on thinking Democrats know exactly what they are doing at all times. Its probably easier for you that way
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,477
12,607
136
Ahh, a huffington post link telling me how democrats are better. Thanks for another laugh.



If you really think Democrats are always amazing at economics, you are bitterly partisan or just plain dumb. There have been good economies with democrats at the helm, and there have been some stinkers. The same can be said for Republicans as well.

Dont let me take off those blinders though, keep on thinking Democrats know exactly what they are doing at all times. Its probably easier for you that way

Putting words in my mouth now huh!. I would never say as a Democrat that we know exactly what is going on, but we sure know how the average joe lives.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
So the original Volcker Rule went through, mandating a complete firewall between banks and their investment arms? That's unexpected, I had read that it was going to be watered down to "don't leverage yourselves quite so much". Good to hear.

The point about derivatives is pleasing as well. I'm glad they aren't taking away the option completely as it is a useful tool for hedging, but IMO a proper bank shouldn't be allowed the temptation to lend out to the extent that it'd mean serious trouble for the entire organization if things went awry.

All in all, an excellent piece of news, at least from where this layman sits. A lot depends on what types of trading and derivatives must be firewalled, but I'll go on good faith that they addressed the riskiest bits.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,477
12,607
136
Ahh, a huffington post link telling me how democrats are better. Thanks for another laugh.



If you really think Democrats are always amazing at economics, you are bitterly partisan or just plain dumb. There have been good economies with democrats at the helm, and there have been some stinkers. The same can be said for Republicans as well.

Dont let me take off those blinders though, keep on thinking Democrats know exactly what they are doing at all times. Its probably easier for you that way

Is this objective enough for you?
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Putting words in my mouth now huh!. I would never say as a Democrat that we know exactly what is going on, but we sure know how the average joe lives.

Democrats in power right now have no fucking idea how the average joe lives, and you know it. They couldnt be more disconnected from the American public right now if they tried.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81

From your link:

obamasurplus.JPG


lol. Thanks for a 3rd laugh. Looks like we are about to fall off a cliff
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Democrats in power right now have no fucking idea how the average joe lives, and you know it. They couldnt be more disconnected from the American public right now if they tried.



But they do know that the average joe falls hook, line, and sinker for "free stuff at the expense of others". How do you think Obama got elected?.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Found a good BusinessWeek article that goes into more detail. So it's not a complete firewall, but it comes pretty close. (Industry insiders please comment if that's not the case.)

BusinessWeek.com - Congressional Overhaul Maps the Future of Financial Regulation

‘Volcker Rule’

The Obama administration’s proposal to ban banks from proprietary trading, nicknamed the Volcker rule after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, was softened by congressional negotiators.

Under a measure that may not take full effect for as long as a dozen years, banks can invest in private-equity and hedge funds, though they will be limited to providing no more than 3 percent of the fund’s capital. Banks also can’t invest more than 3 percent of their Tier 1 capital. The change alters language in a bill the Senate approved in May, which would have barred banks from sponsoring or investing in private-equity and hedge funds.

The legislation defines proprietary trading as engaging as a principal for a trading account of a bank or non-bank financial company supervised by the Fed “in any transaction to purchase or sell, or otherwise acquire or dispose of, any security, any derivative, any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery, any option on any such security, derivative or contract, or any other security or financial instrument” that regulators designate through rule-writing.

Negotiators also agreed to give regulators less say than previously proposed to define a ban on proprietary trading. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, backed a change offered by Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Carl Levin of Michigan that “more clearly defines the limits on proprietary trading” by writing the ban into the legislation. The earlier Senate bill would have let regulators write it.

Derivatives

After spending months crafting legislation, lawmakers reached a deal on what they termed the most challenging part of their task -- establishing for the first time a regulatory structure for the $615 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.

The most contentious part of the derivatives rules is a provision that will force banks to push some of their swaps- trading into subsidiaries, on the theory it would reduce taxpayers’ risk if the trades are walled off from depositary institutions that enjoy federal benefits such as access to the Federal Reserve’s discount lending window.

The original proposal by Senator Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, would have banned all swaps-trading by commercial banks. It touched off intense lobbying from opponents including the banking industry, banking regulators, the Obama administration and lawmakers of both parties who said the proposal could drive up costs for businesses and send business to foreign lenders.

In the end, parties agreed that banks will be able to maintain their trading operations so long as they are used to hedge risk or trade interest rate or foreign exchange swaps, a victory for banks that were on the verge of losing the desks entirely. The proposal will force a fundamental shift in the industry, giving federally insured banks up to two years to send instruments such as un-cleared credit default swaps off to a separately capitalized subsidiary.

Derivatives took a central role in the debate over Wall Street regulation after losing bets on swaps tied to mortgage- backed securities pushed New York-based insurer American International Group Inc. to the brink of bankruptcy in 2008. Derivatives are contracts whose value is derived from stocks, bonds, loans, currencies and commodities, or linked to specific events such as changes in interest rates or the weather.

Beyond the swaps-desk provision, the Senate legislation will push most over-the-counter derivatives through third-party clearinghouses and onto regulated exchanges or similar electronic systems, a measure that will make it easier for the market and regulators to track the trades. It will mean higher margin costs on some transactions.

Regulators also will be required to impose heightened capital requirements on companies with large swaps positions, and would be given the authority to limit the number of contracts a single trader can hold.

Businesses that use derivatives to hedge risk from producing or consuming commodities, deemed “end users,” will be exempt from the clearing requirements if the activities were being undertaken as a way to hedge legitimate business risk.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,477
12,607
136
Its a shame Obama isnt in those charts, or we could see a real spendthrift in a league of his own.

Yea, clueless, getting a balanced budget is the last thing the government should be doing when there's no economic activity. Just keep those black and white green eyeshade accounting thoughts in your little head. It's called Keneysian economics. But, keep advocating the Hoover method. It worked so well.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Yea, clueless, getting a balanced budget is the last thing the government should be doing when there's no economic activity.

lol, yeah and spending us into fucking oblivioin with money we dont have is obviously working out great. I thought Obama promised us unemployment wouldnt rise above...what, 7% or so?

Thanks for another laugh.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
lol, yeah and spending us into fucking oblivioin with money we dont have is obviously working out great. I thought Obama promised us unemployment wouldnt rise above...what, 7% or so?

Thanks for another laugh.

Why do you persist in refusing to understand basic economics??


And really simple logic escapes you too. Let's say I predict that if I punch you in the face you'll die. Then I punch you in the face and all it does is break your nose. Do you then say "Punching me in the face had no effect!!!"? No, because obviously it did harm you, but your face is stronger than my prediction assumed.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Why do you persist in refusing to understand basic economics??

The same reason why you insist on your beliefs being 100% accurate with no possible room for error. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, Obama is fucking this one up?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
The same reason why you insist on your beliefs being 100% accurate with no possible room for error. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, Obama is fucking this one up?
As time goes on I'm becoming convinced there's something in the air coming in off the oceans that affects thought patterns.

California
Hawaii
New Zealand
etc.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Ahh, a huffington post link telling me how democrats are better. Thanks for another laugh.

Pay attention now- the graph is raw data, GDP growth. Are you accusing the author of altering the numbers? Are you telling us that the numbers mean something different than the obvious? If so, what?

Or are you afraid that reading anything from Huffpo will burn your eyes out?
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
From your link:

obamasurplus.JPG


lol. Thanks for a 3rd laugh. Looks like we are about to fall off a cliff

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the budget for any given year is set the year before. Bush's one year of surplus was already set in stone before he took office. Accordingly, that huge dive you see for Obama was actually set in stone with Bush.