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

[BoberFett]

It won't be any different with corporations. They will say one thing, but do another. Or worse, do one thing under one name, but do another under another name. Making you think they are actually for your best interest, but in reality are working against it.

Not to mention once they have the government officials bought out and controlled they can control the laws and regulations. A good example is this financial reform which at the beginning had good changes, but after all the lobbying by the financial industry it isn't really going to change anything.

Which is why I'm a libertarian. Big Government and Big Business are partners, not competitors. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[jackace]

Which is why I'm a libertarian. Big Government and Big Business are partners, not competitors. It's a symbiotic relationship.

I thought Libertarians are for small Government?

 

[BoberFett]

I thought Libertarians are for small Government?

And?

I feel like you were going to say something, and forgot to finish.

Better to have small effective government than big ineffective government, or worse yet what we have, big corrupt government that actively works against it's citizens.

 

[manlymatt83]

Unfortunately the Fed is all we have between us and the corporations who have proven don't have our or our counties best interests at heart. Not to mention the Fed has at least some accountability to the voters.

Then the voters need to stand up. Take the fucking government out of the picture, reduce regulations, and let the people stand up to the companies. Learn to not buy things you can't afford, and watch as their profits dribble.

 

[jackace]

And?

I feel like you were going to say something, and forgot to finish.

Better to have small effective government than big ineffective government, or worse yet what we have, big corrupt government that actively works against it's citizens.

You are talking about how you are for the symbiotic relationship between big business and big government, but then called yourself a Libertarian. Those 2 statements seem to contradict one another, considering Libertarians are for small government.

Edit - Just because the government becomes small doesn't mean it won't be corrupt.

 

[BoberFett]

You are talking about how you are for the symbiotic relationship between big business and big government, but then called yourself a Libertarian. Those 2 statements seem to contradict one another, considering Libertarians are for small government.

Edit - Just because the government becomes small doesn't mean it won't be corrupt.

Are you fucking brain damaged? I'm against big government and big corporations. Where did you read that I'm for those things? Learn to read dumbass.

 

[alphatarget1]

From my point of view, the more directly connected costs and charges are, the better.
If you are getting free checking but getting screwed on debit card fees, pathetic interest rates, and your taxes to bail out these banks when they take unnecessary risks, that's not all that great of a deal.

It's not my fault that idiots who can't manage their money get charged $$$ for NSF/overdraft transactions.

 

[jackace]

Are you fucking brain damaged? I'm against big government and big corporations. Where did you read that I'm for those things? Learn to read dumbass.

Sorry I misinterpreted/misread your post. Nice to see you so easily resort to name calling though.

It still doesn't change the fact that just because the government is small doesn't mean it won't be just as corrupt as a big government. Not to mention small government will have just as much to gain by selling out to business interests.

 

[piasabird]

The Bankers probably wrote the bill. If we still have banks offerring 35% interest when you miss or are late on one bill payment. I dont see any protection for the consumer.

 

[lothar]

The Bankers probably wrote the bill. If we still have banks offerring 35% interest when you miss or are late on one bill payment. I dont see any protection for the consumer.

Wouldn't surprise me.
The big banks opposed the bill fully at first, then after a few things were thrown and jumbled in here and there, they all of a sudden changed their minds and decided to fully support it.

 

[lothar]

Well, if you want to see how the bill is failing already, go to wsj.com and read the article about the new bond rating regulation. (I didn't link it b/c wsj.com is a subscription site) Basically, in an effort to stop Moody's, Fitch, et al from fraudulently rating bond offerings they've imposed direct liability on them if the offering does not live up to it's rating. But, now the rating agencies have the option of preventing their ratings from being used in a bond issue. Laws require that public issues have a rating. Basically the entire new-issue corporate bond market has shut down b/c rating agencies refuse to allow their ratings to be used. I mean, what if AM Best had legitimately rated a BP bond as A before the Deepwater Horizon spill and was on the hook for then tire bond offering amount not due to a credit issue but for an operational one? That's why there were 3 billion dollars of new corporate bond issues last week and zero this week.

What more do you expect from foolish politicians that don't have an ounce of common sense?
http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet...J/201007221805DOWJONESDJONLINE000771_univ.xml

 

[lothar]

Wall Street Applauds SEC's FinReg Reprieve For ABS Market

Wall Street welcomed regulators' decision Thursday to offer a reprieve on a clause in the financial regulatory overhaul law that bankers blamed for freezing the sale of new securities in the $700 billion market for bonds backed by consumer loans.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said it will let issuers omit credit ratings from registration statements filed for new public bonds in the next six months. Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's, Fitch Ratings and others had said they would forbid clients to include their ratings in documents filed with the SEC, saying the regulatory overhaul, signed into law Wednesday, potentially exposes them to an unknown degree of additional legal liability for ratings opinions included in bond registration documents.

"It appears this [move by the SEC] could alleviate short-term pressure and provide temporary relief so new issuance can get done in the public market as it has been done in the past," said Paul Jablansky, an asset-backed securities strategist at the Royal Bank of Scotland.

No consumer-loan-backed bonds have been issued this week, and industry participants were in deep discussions with lawyers about the impact of the new law and considering alternatives to the public asset-backed bond market.

"Without the SEC's action, the securitization markets would have been flash frozen, as credit rating agencies were unable to issue new ratings without a clear understanding of their long-term legal liabilities," said Tom Deutsch, executive director of the American Securitization Forum, a trade group.

The SEC's decision "is overwhelmingly positive news for the ABS market," said Ed Gainor, a partner at Bingham McCutchen in New York. "This action by the SEC will unfreeze the market at least temporarily. Over the longer term there will still need to be a solution because the law still exists. In the next six months someone will have to figure out what needs to change."
The law has introduced several ambiguities, including what third-party due diligence reports will be made public.

Rating firms have been lobbying hard on the issue. Standard & Poor's President Deven Sharma met with SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro on Tuesday to discuss a variety of issues, including the rule change that would expose rating firms to greater liability because they'd be considered "experts" in bond deals.

"This action will provide issuers, rating agencies and other market participants with a transition period in order to implement changes to comply with the new statutory requirement while still conducting registered ABS offerings," said Meredith Cross, director of the SEC's division of corporation finance.

Regulators had been weighing the "expert" exemption for some time. In September 2009, the SEC sought comments from industry participants about whether it should propose rescinding the exemption for credit ratings in securities registration statements. The SEC wanted to know what impact that might have on markets in light of the ratings industry's growth and how investors use credit ratings nowadays.

In December, ratings company representatives submitted letters arguing against such a rescission. McGraw-Hill Cos.' (MHP) Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said it believed rescinding the rule "would result in troubling and unintended consequences for the market, including reduced transparency due to issuers providing less information to investors." Earlier this year, representatives of S&P and Moody's met with the SEC to discuss the issue.

Some large investors, however, have supported removing the exemption. In an April letter, the California Public Employees' Retirement System said "making credit rating agencies civilly liable for misstatements or omissions which they cause to be placed in securities offerings" would represent "a large step forward in deterring harmful conduct" by credit raters in the structured-finance area.

S&P declined to comment. Fitch and Moody's, a part of Moody's Corp. (MCO) did not immediately return calls for comment. But others applauded the SEC's move.

"The SEC's action gives welcome relief to the ABS markets, which have been pummelled in recent days by uncertainty as a result of the recent adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act," said Lewis Cohen, partner at Clifford Chance LLP. "People will still wonder what the next steps are and how things will play out after the exemption runs out. It's still a wide open question as to how things will play out in the longer term."

Richard Dorfman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, an industry group, said the reprieve "will allow issuers, credit rating agencies and other market participants to conduct registered ABS offerings, avoiding the potential for negative impact on the availability of financing and to the U.S. economy."

http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet...J/201007221805DOWJONESDJONLINE000771_univ.xml
Source: Dow Jones

 

[nonlnear]

The mandatory bond ratings were a government subsidy for the dysfunctional ratings industry in the first place. Creating "accountability" for the ratings is nothing more than extending that subsidy while throwing a bone to a certain camp within the ABA aiming at a realistic possibility of multi billion dollar class action lawsuits.

Of course the real solution would be to allow bond issues without ratings, and let the ratings houses prove their value in a fair fight. THEN you'd see ratings agencies become a lot more transparent (and less profitable) or die fast. Of course, we can't just destroy billion dollar industries on a silly whim just because they are totally corrupt, now can we? Better to make them suspend operations for a while, retool, and cut class action lawyers in on the government subsidized racket.