• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why the "Financial Regulations" bill is a failure for consumers.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bamacre said:
The "better than nothing" crowd can't see these kinds of regulations help the big guys (the big banks we all hate) get bigger. And bigger and bigger. Why? Because those little guys, you know the ones people like Arianna Huffington told us to start doing business with instead of the "too big to fails," simply have a harder and harder time being able to cover the costs of these regulations. They are simply too small to absorb the costs. Did you ever wonder how these big firms got to be so big in the first place? Too big to fail is about to become way too big to fail. And when they go back to the taxpayers with their hands out saying "we fucked up again and we need another bailout," you suckers will find every fucking excuse in the world to give it to them, and people like me will be blasted for trying to say "no." Edit: Again.
Click to expand...


If Obama accomplished preventing that, you would call him a __________
 
bamacre said:
The "better than nothing" crowd can't see these kinds of regulations help the big guys (the big banks we all hate) get bigger. And bigger and bigger. Why? Because those little guys, you know the ones people like Arianna Huffington told us to start doing business with instead of the "too big to fails," simply have a harder and harder time being able to cover the costs of these regulations. They are simply too small to absorb the costs. Did you ever wonder how these big firms got to be so big in the first place? Too big to fail is about to become way too big to fail.
Click to expand...

This bill does more damage to community banks than Wall Street banks.


32.jpg


Hmmm...I only see one Wall St. bank on the list. Did the remaining 29 community banks cause or contribute to the financial crisis?
Hell, of the 30 banks on the list I've only heard of five of them(SunTrust, M&T Bank, Regions Financial, Associated Bank, and Bank of America). The remaining are completely new to me.

Big Wall St. banks like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and the others can easily makeup the fees by charging for burgers instead of sodas.
For most community banks? Soda's is all they've got unless they want to start charging for salt and pepper satchets.

Community banks earn most of their profits from debit/credit transactions and bank service fees unlike Wall St. banks which offer "full" service products and can earn money through other sources.
 
Last edited:
bamacre said:
The "better than nothing" crowd can't see these kinds of regulations help the big guys (the big banks we all hate) get bigger. And bigger and bigger. Why? Because those little guys, you know the ones people like Arianna Huffington told us to start doing business with instead of the "too big to fails," simply have a harder and harder time being able to cover the costs of these regulations. They are simply too small to absorb the costs. Did you ever wonder how these big firms got to be so big in the first place? Too big to fail is about to become way too big to fail. And when they go back to the taxpayers with their hands out saying "we fucked up again and we need another bailout," you suckers will find every fucking excuse in the world to give it to them, and people like me will be blasted for trying to say "no." Edit: Again.
Click to expand...

That's a nice little bit of unrelated rhetoric, but that's all it is - unrelated rhetoric.

Mandating banks to firewall their investment arms from their consumer operations isn't going to harm little banks. You know why? Because small banks don't have investment arms.

Adding SEC and CFTC oversight to derivatives isn't going to harm little banks. You know why? Because small banks don't play with derivatives past their use as a little bit of insurance (what they were created for).

The free market solution of allowing Moody's and Standard & Poor, public companies both, sure worked out great for ensuring proper information was passed on to the end customer/investor, didn't it? They rated those junk bonds as AAA until the very end. A new Office Of Credit Ratings? Please, bring it on!

People like you are amongst the worst of the people who add their voices to a debate. You take the one boilerplate argument you've got - "GOVERNMENT BAAAAAAAAAD!" - and apply it without thinking to any scenario. Yes, you will be blasted for bleating mindlessly without knowing the details. As well you should be.
 
Last edited:
yllus said:
That's a nice little bit of unrelated rhetoric, but that's all it is - unrelated rhetoric.

Mandating banks to firewall their investment arms from their consumer operations isn't going to harm little banks. You know why? Because small banks don't have investment arms.

Adding SEC and CFTC oversight to derivatives isn't going to harm little banks. You know why? Because small banks don't play with derivatives past their use as a little bit of insurance (what they were created for).

The free market solution of allowing Moody's and Standard & Poor, public companies both, sure worked out great for ensuring proper information was passed on to the end customer/investor, didn't it? They rated those junk bonds as AAA until the very end. A new Office Of Credit Ratings? Please, bring it on!

People like you are amongst the worst of the people who add their voices to a debate. You take the one boilerplate argument you've got - "GOVERNMENT BAAAAAAAAAD!" - and apply it without thinking to any scenario. Yes, you will be blasted for bleating mindlessly without knowing the details. As well you should be.
Click to expand...

What about airlines(Southwest did this and they only had to pay $60/barrel of oil when oil was trading at $120/barrel) and agricultural(General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft Foods do this with corn and wheat) companies that use derivatives to smooth their operations? Are they exempt from this bill? or is this bill a blanket "all derivatives are bad" statement?

Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Fitch are government created/sponsored monopolies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationally_Recognized_Statistical_Rating_Organization
 
sandorski said:
If these Regs prevent the repeat of the meltdown we're now recovering from, then they are Good. Pretty much the end of the discussion. Hopefully the Market will take care of these Banks turning around and simply Charging Customers more.
Click to expand...

This, some banks will keep free checking and gain mountains of customers as a result.

The big 5 can fuck off, if you are a member of one of them you're an idiot anyway as they categorically have the worst customer service in their sector.
 
All bills out of washington these days are failures for citizens because they are poisoned by millions in lobbying dollars each and every time. This is sacrosanct.
 
Acanthus said:
This, some banks will keep free checking and gain mountains of customers as a result.

The big 5 can fuck off, if you are a member of one of them you're an idiot anyway as they categorically have the worst customer service in their sector.
Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

The Cons have to further 'talk-down' financial reform since their opposition failed so miserably (especially with the American people).




--
 
This is happening to me as a consumer lately:

1. Credit rewards/cash back are getting smaller and harder to come by.
2. Harder to get rewards for free checking/money market/etc. accounts.
3. Interest rates at my savings/CDs/etc. accounts are nil to none.

Oh, the initial version of this bill would give consumers their credit score, not just report. The final version = nothing about the score.
 
Clearly we need a federal bank at each Post Office that offers checking, savings, credit cards, and investment in index funds, etc, covering all the average person's banking needs at a basic minimum at cost fee. If the banks are criminal organizations that are always ahead of government regulation and destroying the nation, then they should not exist. Liquidate them and put their assets in the treasury.
 
BoberFett said:
Actually as a consumer you get to vote daily. The free market is far more democratic than our "democracy."
Click to expand...

Yeah, but his contention was that you have no voice if you aren't a customer. It's like not voting or a protest vote. But yes, it's daily in the free market 🙂
 
woodie1 said:
Since Chris and Barney got us into this mess it seems natural that they would be the ones to get us out of it. ...lol...

What fools we are being played for.
Click to expand...

But it's awesome to see so many people negatively affected.

Something I was told for years would never happen.
 
Moonbeam said:
Clearly we need a federal bank at each Post Office that offers checking, savings, credit cards, and investment in index funds, etc, covering all the average person's banking needs at a basic minimum at cost fee. If the banks are criminal organizations that are always ahead of government regulation and destroying the nation, then they should not exist. Liquidate them and put their assets in the treasury.
Click to expand...

Why YOU! dirty Commie!
Lol!
 
So if we do anything to regulate businesses, their profits remain the same as they all increase prices.

However, if we deregulate businesses they do whatever they want at the expense of consumers, the environment, local government, etc. The free market becomes useless since every business becomes corrupt and there are no alternatives.

What is the solution?
 
Skoorb said:
All bills out of washington these days are failures for citizens because they are poisoned by millions in lobbying dollars each and every time. This is sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

Yep, government exists for the corporations now. It's the suckers who still believe the government is for them.
 
Lemon law said:
Its a ridiculously argument in MHO to say, if we take away one ability of the banks to gouge the consumer, the banks will simply gouge us in another area.
Click to expand...

No, but it is realistic to assume a company will look to replace said lost revenue by other means. To think otherwise is to kid yourself.

As it is, the bankers can't be trusted with our money, its simply human nature, too many Bankers will try to use our money as they gamble our money in various gambling casinos. If they win, they pocket the profits as personal profits, if they lose, they come and demand the tax payers bail their ass out. With a deal that sweet, no wonder everyone in the financial industry was gambling money they did not own, and when it went sour, its took down the entire world economy.
Click to expand...

So the solution then is to never bail out anyone and make it clear there won't ever be any bailouts. The threat of extinction is the best motivator of good behavior I can come up with. Excellent -- we agree on something.
 
brencat said:
No, but it is realistic to assume a company will look to replace said lost revenue by other means. To think otherwise is to kid yourself.



So the solution then is to never bail out anyone and make it clear there won't ever be any bailouts. The threat of extinction is the best motivator of good behavior I can come up with. Excellent -- we agree on something.
Click to expand...

That works on an Individual Institution level, but not on a Sectoral level.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top