DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Dodd-Frank Rollback

I really can't help the sensationalism, name calling and nonsense that has happened on the other threads, nor can I prevent it on this one, but I at least thought I'd bring up a headline that I think is a huge, substantive issue. Hopefully some intelligent debate on the topic will ensue before conjecture and emotion reign supreme.

The article is from the NY Times. If someone has an alternate news source with a different take that they'd like to post, you're more than welcome:

-------------------------------

Trump Moves to Roll Back Obama-Era Financial Regulations


By BEN PROTESS and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISFEB. 3, 2017


Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Continue reading the main story



Photo


President Trump met with business leaders in the State Dining Room at the White House on Friday. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

President Trump moved to roll back the Obama administration’s legacy on financial regulation on Friday, announcing an array of steps to undo rules enacted to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis and turning to the Wall Street titans he had demonized during his campaign for advice.

After a White House meeting with the business executives on Friday, Mr. Trump signed a directive calling for a rewriting of major provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, crafted by the Obama administration and passed by Congress in response to the 2008 meltdown, the White House said. A second directive he signed is expected to halt and possibly require an overhaul of an Obama-era Labor Department rule that requires brokers to act in a client’s best interest, rather than seek the highest profits for themselves, when providing retirement advice.

Taken together, the actions constitute a broad effort to loosen regulations on banks and other major financial companies, put into motion by a president who campaigned as a champion of working Americans and a harsh critic of Wall Street and other global elites.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said his actions were intended to ease constraints on banks and enable them to lend more to companies, which could then hire more workers.
Continue reading the main story





Advertisement
Continue reading the main story



“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that had nice businesses, they can’t borrow money,” Mr. Trump said in the State Dining Room during his meeting with business leaders. “They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow it because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.”



Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
As he announced his goals on financial deregulation, Mr. Trump sat beside Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of the private equity giant the Blackstone Group and the chairman of his business council, who said the panel would “advise the government on the areas where we could do things a lot better in our country, for all Americans.”

The president had praise for Jamie Dimon, whose bank, JPMorgan Chase, was often a target of regulatory actions by the Obama administration.

“There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Mr. Trump said.

The meeting underscored the degree to which the architects of Mr. Trump’s economic strategy are now some of the people he denounced in his campaign, which ended with a commercial that described “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.”

The advertisement included an image of the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has become a virtual feeder for top Trump administration officials. Steven Mnuchin, his nominee for Treasury secretary, is a former Goldman Sachs trader and a hedge fund manager. Gary Cohn, the chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers, was Goldman’s No. 2 executive, and Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, is a former Goldman banker.

The president’s actions came just hours after congressional Republicans voted to repeal an unrelated Dodd-Frank rule, a sign that Mr. Trump will have the support he needs on Capitol Hill to upend a law he has called “a disaster,” and promised to do “a big number” to reshape.

While the president cannot unwind Dodd-Frank with the stroke of a pen, his orders set the tone for the regulatory agencies enforcing the rules, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. And the orders, which Democrats and consumer groups immediately denounced as gifts to the Wall Street companies that ignited the 2008 crisis, could portend even more executive actions that direct the regulators to halt financial regulation.

The actions are the latest sign that Mr. Trump, despite striking a populist tone during the campaign, is working to accommodate Wall Street and other corporations.



Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
“The administration apparently plans to turn over financial regulation to Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs, and make it easier for them and other big banks like Wells Fargo to steal from their customers and destabilize the economy,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, an advocacy group that supports Dodd-Frank. “That betrays the promises Trump made to stand up to Wall Street, and it will have dire consequences if he’s successful.”

The president’s deference to the visiting executives — he also heaped praise on Laurence D. Fink, the head of the investment firm BlackRock, for managing money for the Trumps and earning “great returns” — sharply contrasts with his predecessor. President Barack Obama once remarked that “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

Photo


President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial reform law on July 21, 2010. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Following the new president’s lead, congressional Republicans on Friday started chipping away at Dodd-Frank, one of Mr. Obama’s signature achievements. The Republicans used an unusual parliamentary procedure to repeal a rule that stems from the law with only a majority of votes rather than the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

The Senate voted 52 to 47 to void the rule, which requires oil companies to publicly disclose payments they make to governments when developing resources around the world. The rule, which Dodd-Frank assigned to the Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce, was tangential to Dodd-Frank’s mission of reforming Wall Street, but lawmakers included it anyway with the hope of exposing bribes and corruption.

Some of the largest American oil companies objected to the S.E.C. rule, including Exxon Mobil, arguing that it put them at a competitive disadvantage with foreign companies. Rex W. Tillerson, Mr. Trump’s secretary of state, personally lobbied against it when he was the top executive of Exxon Mobil, according to public accounts.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html

Ever try to run a small business or any size business and not be allowed to borrow from the bank?

This will open up business expansions and hiring. I like it.

Good thread, I was thinking of starting one but I really don't know to much about it. Maybe you or some one else can explain this to me. I thought the '07 - '08 Financial crisis was caused by the housing crisis. As I understand it Pres. Bush was going to speak to congress and warn them NOT to pass the Housing bill, which would (more or less) force banks to give loans to under-qualified people, based on the assumption that the "new loans" would then be bought out by Freddie mac and Fannie may and would then be no threat to the banks. Not sure how that was supposed to work out, as it seemed alot of banks got caught holding the bag on bad loans. To Me this was most of the Dems. fault. Barney Frank, if I remember right, told Bush that he would brand him a racist if he tried to stop this bill. What I don't understand is WE ALL KNEW WHAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN....You can't loan money to people who have no way of paying it back. The Dems. are the ones who pushed this thing and Someone needs to explain this to me. WHY?

I've done legal work for a few businesses that fought like hell to find an alternative way to get financing...via private offerings and a few other mechanisms.

That being said, I'm skeptical that the reasoning above is an "ice berg" reason...meaning providing one justifiable rationale for the rollback, while a multitude of bad reasons exist under the surface.

Pretty sure Trump could write out a few loans for all his friends. No need to jeopardize Trumps economic recovery with Banks writing a bunch of risky loans right now.

It is called the Fiduciary rule and Trump is delaying its implementation due to the fact it has unintended consequences of limiting the choices and options of investors by financial advisers. He does not want those investment choices limited in a time where they are trying to get younger people to start investing.

I kinda like it.

I think that we have to remember that this whole law was put into place for a reason though.

Also, I think fiduciary duty is one of those golden rules. IIRC, there is a provision that the rollback will affect a duty to give the investor the best advice, not the advice that would profit the investment company the most. Taking that away as a fiduciary duty is a huge setback to me.

These Executive orders today do not change anything. IMO, Trump is simply setting the table for fiscal stimulus and tax cuts in the future.

Good luck with this^ No one ever cared before that it was Democrat legislation that led to the housing collapse, just happy to blame it on Bush.

You are pretty close. It's extremely complicated and people have written entire books on it.. and I'm not qualified to explain it to you but if you follow the path of laws and regulations that started the ball rolling toward the housing bubble and collapse, it goes back to Reagan and some things he did.. Clinton signed a law that 30% of Freddie and Fannie's loans had to be to low income people.. and a host of other things happened... Then it branches into derivatives and packaging and selling loans and it all kind of falls apart.. then throw in that most of the way they achieved these loans in the early 2000s was with ARM loans which had initial interest of almost 0.. then by about 2005, (I think) the fed raised interest rates considerably over a short period of time and people who could afford their mortgages, suddenly couldn't..

All told you can trace what happened through 4 administrations multiple changes in leadership in the house and senate, the federal reserve, Fannie and Freddie, private banks.... but it's just so much easier to say, "Bush did it."

Wow, nothings ever easy is it? It looks like it snow-balled over the years, I don't know if Bush could have killed it over his term or maybe tried to delay some parts, but without any support I guess you just let it play out.

They are loosening the rules to try and avoid a major crash. I don't think it will help but will only speed up a long overdue correction in the markets.

This bubble has been created by the fed propping up the economy for the rich while the lower classes have suffered recession and economic austerity. The Fed has to raise rates soon in order to reduce the enormous growth of debt.

The only play the Trump administration has to curb this, in my opinion, is an economic boon in the middle class that happens before or simultaneously with the raising of the Fed rates. The country needs tax dollars to avoid this... Don't think it will happen and a crash is imminent, just my opinion for what it's worth.

Maybe were not on the same page as I'm not understanding what you mean about debt? The higher the interest rate goes the more the Gov. has to pay on the interest of the debt? Is that right? I thought they wanted to keep rates low so they wouldn't have to pay more interest on the debt. Maybe I'm confusing this with something different.

Some of the more economic saavy Dawgs will correct me, but the Fed Rate is the interest rate bans can charge for the lending of money... downside for us is that the lower the rate they charge, the lower the rate of our return on things like interest on our savings accounts.

Yeah I get that, Maybe this rate is different than the one they use to pay interest off the debt.

I don't know all the specifics of Dodd-Frank, but I have heard that it is often called Dodd-Frankenstein because it's a monster. It's a waist high stack of rules that no one really knows all of because it's a convoluted mess. Simplifying things sounds like a good idea to me. What is going to replace it is the real question.

Those types of metaphors always give me a little pause. I'm no expert either when it comes to the act either. I do know that Wall Street sure had its share of culpability. It's definitely not a charitable organization and it is ruled by pride and hubris. The act was developed to curb the destructiveness and now it's getting rolled back. If the rollbacks are necessary, how do we make things easier for lending to credible companies while reigning in the heavy-lobbying Big Corps and bankers from screwing the pooch again?

I'm trying to get back into real estate investing. So I hope this makes life easier for me. The way I see it, they could've avoided this mess by leaving interest rates low enough that people wouldn't lose their homes like they did the last time.

But that would be giving up the upper hand, and lenders just don't do that.

Thank goodness! Dodd-Frank has been a disaster for small banks, forcing many of them into merger after merger with bigger banks, because of the massive expense involved in carrying out this mess .... and taking money that could be lent to businesses and paying it to lawyers instead.

Just as an example, I once dealt with 2nd National Bank of Warren. I was with them for over a decade. Dodd came along, and they were forced into merging with (actually being absorbed into) Sky bank. Then Sky was forced to merge with (absorbed into) Huntington. I think that there might have been one other bank involved in there as well. Competition is reduced, because the smaller local banks have a hard tome surviving, let alone competing.

There are probably some useful parts of Dodd, but overall it has been a nightmare, especially for smaller, local banks.

Talking about Competition : Try and get a construction loan for a home as an individual ??? I just went through that and what a wake up call .. I have dealt with Wells Fargo and PNC for years ..Neither one will do individual construction loans now .. I had no idea what it would take go find an outfit .. Finally used a Mortgage Broker out of Greensboro NC .. ( Building a small place in Elkin NC ) Closed the loan on Tuesday and still don't know what I signed .. Looked to be two volumes of war and piece , maybe I A brothel ??

I bet you most people have NO CLUE what Dodd-Frank even is her is a so called short version breakdown that tries to inform y'all

http://media.[censored].com/files/uploads/Images/SummaryDoddFrankAct.pdf

Holy crap The link won't copy because the letters m...o...f...o are between media and com

I do run a small business and I've never had an issue borrowing before or since Dodd Frank.

What we have here is a President that complained that his opponent (clinton) was to tied to Wall Street, so what is one of the first things he does when he gets around to it (first two weeks of his term) He names Wall Street Bankers and Big Industry leaders to join his cabinet as well as dumping the very acts that were designed to stop Wall Street from doing what they did that led to the down fall in 2008.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end, it's still a pig.

Well it's good to see stereotypes and prejudice alive and well!

What about the govt's role in the down fall? And aren't you the least bit skeptical of laws that we were told were meant to "reign" in the evil bankers turned out to benefit those very same people the most?

Remember "too big to fail"? How do we prevent that from happening again? Pass laws and regulations that make the banks in to larger and larger entities?

I just find it odd that a Party who's platform is anti-Big (fill in the blank) tends to pass laws and regulations that consolidate power and resources in to those same Big organizations.

#NeverMindtheManBehindtheCurtain

It's what I and a few others have been saying all along. There is no differences between Republicans and Democrats. They only want to rule and protect themselves.

Never mind. I don't know why that didn't work.

Anyway, maybe a red can g in and edit the word filter and remove the M.O.F.O reference from the word file.

Dawglover05 asked us not to post personal crap in this thread!

Who is GM calling a M.O.F.O. now???

"M.O.F.O." pronounced as Mo' 4... which is slang for More 40! They are calling for more of you!

Well now, this I can understand!

I shall therefore oblige!

40 score and 7 years ago
Our 40Fathers brought 40th on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal to 40.

Well that sucks!

Well, on the other hand, there are some men who are wiser than 40.
Like you Ted.

Now why would you wish that on anybody?

www.bloomberg.com


President Donald Trump will order a sweeping review of the Dodd-Frank Act rules enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis, ...

Trump also will halt another of former President Barack Obama's regulations, hated by the financial industry, that requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients.


Trump's directive also starts the process of stalling the so-called fiduciary rule -- set to take effect in April -- that the Obama administration said would protect millions of retirees from being steered into inappropriate high-cost or high-risk investments that generate bigger profits for brokers.

Also from Reuters
Exxon has 63.7 million acres in Russia that they could not drill on because of the sanctions

By Lisa Lambert and Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (Reuters) - The Republican-led Congress killed a controversial U.S. securities disclosure rule early on Friday aimed at curbing corruption at big oil, gas and mining companies.

In a 52 to 47 vote, the Senate approved a resolution already passed by the House of Representatives that wipes from the books a rule requiring companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp to publicly state the taxes and other fees they pay to foreign governments.

Republican President Donald Trump is expected to sign it shortly.

Exxon and other major energy corporations have fought for years to prevent the rule, required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, from seeing the light of day.

After a series of legal battles, the Securities and Exchange Commission in June 2016 completed the regulation, which supporters say can help expose questionable financial ties U.S. companies may have with foreign governments.

Democrats in the Senate had raised concerns during debate late on Wednesday that Exxon’s chief executive during those legal fights was Rex Tillerson, recently confirmed as Secretary of State, the country’s top diplomatic post.

Tillerson, who has done extensive business in Russia, had raised Democrats’ hackles at his confirmation hearing by saying he did not know Exxon had lobbied against U.S. sanctions on Russia.

“It should be lost on no one that in less than 48 hours, the Republican-controlled Senate has confirmed the former head of ExxonMobil to serve as our Secretary of State, and repealed a key anti-corruption rule that ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute have erroneously fought for years,” said Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the foreign relations committee.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea? I don't mind a guy making a living, but if I'm giving you my money, to turn it into more money, you better have my best interests at heart, or I'm taking my money and going elsewhere first off.

Second, if you're smart, you're going to be doing what's in my best interest to begin with, or I'm taking my money and...

See, now that's what I'm talking about. Everything in that seems damning. Has the administration or any republicans from Congress actually expressed factual information as to why those provisions were repealed????

In my own limited understanding, there is only one reason: to grease the skids for one's high-roller pals (and like-minded 'tribal strangers') to get as much as they can, with the least amount of resistance.



Let me fill in the rest for you, Ted:


...exposing him/her as a self-serving fraud on any electronic platform I can shout from- internet, local media, newspapers, watch groups, etc. It's only actionable as libel if the claims are false. AND- it's the only pitch that someone like You or me has, after he's already been screwed.

A person's individual reputation is his only capital where professional trust is involved. Ruin his rep- and you ruin his future earnings/life. I'd stop at nothing to make this person "Public Enemy #1" among his professional peers. I'd make him as radioactive as I possibly could- because that would be my only recourse, without rules to control the actions of such a person.

But it should never come to that, if people do right by their job responsibilities. For all the hand-wringing that's done about "excessive regulation of business," one truth seems to be ignored:

regulations are almost always [i]reactive[/i] in nature. They come about as a response to some ethical breach that already caused damage to the body populace. And they are put in place to prevent repeat offenses... because Human Nature never changes. In other words: those regs that ppl hate so much- wouldn't even exist if some azzhat hadn't screwed someone like you or me in the first place.

_________________




As a 'little guy,' I actually WANT safeguards in place to protect me (and others like me) from unscrupulous folks who are specialists in areas that I have little to no expertise.

My Hunny & Me have been lucky: we both grew up in small-ish towns where our financial advisers were personal friends of our families. Towns that were small enough to keep tabs on any shenanigans that may have occurred. Small enough to 'police our own.' Our guys have always done alright by us, because their local reputations have always been at stake, every year of their careers.

I'd hate to think what might have happened to us, if the houses that handled Our Future was bought out by some bigazz NY firm who had Playaz playing 'fast & loose' with the only money we had for retirement.

_______________

Trump has done a couple things that I can't really argue with. But this one? I can't see how this is going to benefit The Little Guy in any way.

Maybe I'm missing something... but this looks (at least on the surface) to be a headline-grabbing, poorly-conceived move to further paint him as "The Anti-Obama."

A nation with no regulations is as untenable as a nation without safeguards of any sort. Sooner or later, we'll run the risk of seeing Melania Trump saying something like:

"Let them eat cake."

"regulations are almost always reactive in nature. They come about as a response to some ethical breach that already caused damage to the body populace. And they are put in place to prevent repeat offenses... because Human Nature never changes. In other words: those regs that ppl hate so much- wouldn't even exist if some azzhat hadn't screwed someone like you or me in the first place."


But this assumes a few things, namely that the reaction that took the form of the regulation was correct and proper to begin with and that it actually addressed a real problem.

See, one of the things that I find very curious (suspect) is that generally speaking, Democrats are in favor of additional regulations whenever and wherever they can. They tell us its because the little guy needs protected from Big Biz. That left unchecked Big Biz will rip everyone off at every chance. Big Biz is too big and is corrupt through and through.

When Democrats have been in power they put through thousands and thousands of new regulations a year that we are told are going to fix the problem.

Yet year after year we keep hearing how Big Biz is still screwing the little guy, still getting away with ripping us off, and forever taking advantage of "loop holes".

How does that still happen?

My guess is that there is a lot more to this issue than just repealing a line that says they have to act in the best interest of the client. Way more. Clearly this part is the juiciest and makes the biggest headlines. And if you are one who has it out for Trump you can use it to push an agenda.

Look, for better or worse as to be determined, Trump is conducting an audit of our gov't and gearing it for a major overhaul. Sometimes in those instances when you identify a problem you cut it out and yes, sometimes you are ham fisted about it. Sometimes it's much easier to break it all down and build it back up from scratch. For all we know, while this is one good rule, there could be 9 attached to it that aren't.

Damn, we can't have that kind of crap going now!

Somebody get word to Old Cold One that Bernie and Cruz will debate on CNN tonight at 9.

Only a very few people actually know what is contained in Dodd-Frank. I suspect some of it could go, but the core needs to be maintained.

I really dislike that banks were playing with investments of their customers. I dislike that there was no criminal indictment for some of the fraudulent activities on lenders as well as brokers. It was a game of liars poker and everyone lost.

The problem with Dodd - Frank goes all the way back to the very beginning of our Nation and fight the Forefathers had over how much Govt. is to much Govt. ... Many of us see the Federal Govt. as the Fox in the Hen house ..

I tried to post a link to Dodd-Frank as so many people want ot cry about it but almost NOBODY can actually tell you what is in it

Was that Pelosi who said " You have to find it , to find out what is in it " ! lol

No. She said "we have to pass it so we can find out what's in it."

There are those who all believe that the government was provided the constitution right to regulate commerce, which in the best interest of the people. That is in the constitution as well. Individuals have no chance against large corporations, and that was intended to be a check.

I know Dawg , I was having fun at hear expense ! A little word manipulation

There are those who believe that the Interstate Commerce Article are Unconstitutional , and should have had their day before the supreme Court .. Again

Part of democracy is that there will always be people on the fringes who wish for an alternative reality. The constitution will be subject to interpretation. What it is not is an absolute document. It can be changed by the will of the people through the amendment process.

Good luck with your effort, but I can be on the other side of that one.

So let me get this straight.

The regulations came because people weren't being responsible, including businesses.

And now you guys are cheering the deregulation, because........?

It's like some of you are incapable of learning from the past. I just don't get it. There's a REASON why we needed these regulations.