Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations Watered Down as Trump Signs Executive Orders


#1

Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations Watered Down as Trump Signs Executive Orders

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday scaling back the sweeping 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulatory framework enacted under his predecessor as a direct response to the financial crisis.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer labeled the Dodd-Frank Act a “disastrous policy,” in a Friday press briefing. In taking aim at the Act, a thorn in the side of the financial industry since its inception, the new administration is targeting a broad range of financial reforms, ranging from bank rules about speculating with customer funds :eek: and wind-down provisions for “too big to fail” institutions to consumer protections from predatory debt collection practices and forced arbitration.

On Monday, Trump had called Dodd-Frank a “disaster” and pledged to soon “do a big number” on the law aimed at reforming the way Wall Street does business.

Oh Look, Crony capitalism is back in vogue. Trump can’t wait to add to the swamp in Washington with all of his Goldman Sach appointees in the executive branch. His administration resembles more, the executive organizational chart at Goldman Sachs than one representing the people. You know, the firm that caused the largest meltdown in U.S. history. Inside the Meltdown

Wall Street is nothing more than a Giant Casino for high roller traders who each and every day bet the farm knowing full well if they bet wrong, the ordinary taxpayers, ‘the little people’, will pick up the tab. The same corporation that hid ‘toxic assets’ in an unregulated financial sector known as derivative trading and then paid Moody to rate them Triple A. Goldman Sachs who bet the farm going up on the derivatives knowing full well what they were packaging. When they saw the market turn, took a short position knowing that the stuff they are selling around the world was high risk assets packaged to be hidden. It’s not even pure market capitalism in allowing a company to go under. As the action was impeded by another Goldman Sachs employee, former Secretary of Treasury, Paulson, who developed the 'Too Big to Fail concept.

Trump is an elitists. An oligarch. Billionaires have no concept nor care about the ‘little people’. The Gordon Geeko’s of this world espouse the doctrine “Greed is Good, Baby”.

This action puts the nation at risk of another financial meltdown. Removing the consumer protection act, removal of ethics laws, insider trading, business regulations, predatory debt collection ( targeting the little people on their triple digit interest payments that people will never be able to pay back which causes even mafia loan sharks to blush from shame) will culminate in the collapse of financial markets around the world. Targeting the ‘little people’ who have to work three jobs to make ends meet from sector after sector of jobs being eliminated by AI robotic handlers (95% of Legos are robotically manufactured) or the family suddenly face with paying off catastrophic medical bills because ACA was repealed. Would You Pay $520 in Interest to Borrow $375? 12 Million Americans Did Last Year.

On calls to drain the swamp in Washington D.C., what is truly amazing about the election is the insidious action of the low information voter electing into office the same Congressmen and Senators who were considered the problem ‘the swamp’, the establishment. Congress with an approval rating of 11percent. One wonders some time. :eek:

I certainly would expect all those who oppose the previous president use of executive orders will be equally incensed with Trump ruling by executive fiat order bypassing Congress.

This is contrary to Christian doctrine,dogma,and values as espoused throughout the New Testament so I assume most will be deeply outraged in oppressing the most vulnerable members of our society, the poor, the disabled, the sick, the elderly with changes to the law.


#2

:eek:
Shock and dismay!!


#3

I wrote this in the other thread on the same topic:

Here we go.

Anybody remember 2008-2009? Anyone get hurt that year?

I did. I lost my job. So did my wife. It was terrifying.


#4

So the ordinary taxpayer ‘the little people’ will have to pay off once again the **Gambling Debts **of the Fraudsters and Banksters on Wall Street and will be subjected to predatory debt collection practices if we don’t!


5,300 Wells Fargo employees fired over 2 million phony accounts

U.S.: Wells Fargo illegally repossessed 413 service members’ cars

CEO sold millions in Wells Fargo stock before fraud revelations

**
Traders Manipulated Currency Rates To Profit Off Clients: Report**

Greed and dishonesty laid bare as scale of Libor rigging revealed

Juxtaposition the fact and scope that the $trillions of dollars lost in the meltdown only one top bank executive went to jail over the illegal tactics in the financial meltdown and predatory mortgage lending, while a man who stole $5 worth of food went to jail and found dead 4 months later


#5

I think a lot of people don’t really understand what happened in 2008 and previously, and I don’t think they understand the fundamental problem has not been cured these 8 years past.

Dodd Frank didn’t cure it, but it did make it harder to borrow money than it should be.


#6

What seems to be happening is what I call the “We Love Baby Ducks Law” scenario. A law is passed, lets call it the “We Love Baby Ducks Law”. Lets also assume the law says “In order to protect baby ducks, we will confiscate all private land around ponds.” The law will also have some pork barrel projects in it with nothing to do with baby ducks, cause that’s how government rolls. When the law is passed politicians will sell the law to the American public as something necessary to protect baby ducks, because everyone loves baby ducks. They’ll show pictures of dead baby ducks killed by horrible hunters to prove the need for the law.

After a while new Politician John Doe realizes the law is stupid and says “lets overturn that law”. Then the media comes out in full force saying Politician John Doe hates baby ducks. Only an evil person would hurt baby ducks and John Doe is that person.

No real analysis of the law or its effect is necessary…only headlines, talking points and internet memes are needed.

Same thing will happen with Dodd Frank. No real analysis of its impact, all is needed is the talking point: the law was in response to the market crash. No additional analysis about how effective the law was is needed. Doesn’t matter if the crash was caused by incenting people to sell mortgages to poor people who couldn’t afford their own house. Doesn’t matter if Obama started pushing selling mortgages to people with bad credit.
washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

The only thing that matters is keeping Dodd Frank, because it was passed with good intentions. Dodd Frank = Baby Ducks


#7

Yea, a good portion of that money allocated to the banks and financial institutions to help the small business owner went instead to placing bets in the the financial market.

**Historic records demonstrate and proven the financial harm to taxpayer for failure to regulate the Financial and Banking institutions! **The repeal on deregulating the thrift industry, cause the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s commonly known as the S&L crisis which caused the **failure of 1,043 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations **in the United States from 1986 to 1995!:eek:

The estimated the total cost to be $160 billion, including $132.1 billion taken from taxpayers!!!

The repeal of the The Glass–Steagall Act with the the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act caused one of the greatest financial meltdown 07-08. The Dodd-Frank Act over the objection of Wall Street, was still a water down gutted version of the Glass–Steagall and still failed to restore Sections 20 and 32. As a result, US household debt as a percentage of annual disposable personal income in the third quarter of 2008 was 290% of GDP. Households lost $14 Trillion dollars! TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, spent $700 billion in taxpayers’ money to bail out banks after the financial crisis!:eek:

Now, these same banksters and fraudsters want to expose the American taxpayers to additional risk because Goldman Sachs cronies in Trumps’s administration want to water down the already watered down Dodd-Frank bill! All upside for these fraudsters, all downside risk assume by the ‘little people’, the American taxpayer under the mantra, “Greed is Good, Baby”?

The Glass–Steagall Act needs to be reinstated!

Deregulation does not work with these guys! Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me! Fool me three times…?? Drain the swamp, give me a break.


#8

Your analogy is wrong. The deception comes with only a disguise of appeasing the baby ducks lovers with the title “We Love Baby Ducks Law”. Because of lobbying and special interests from developers, their real intent is to drain the pond to sell off the land to developers knowing that low information voters will not even bother to read nor understand the obtuse convoluted language within the legislation. So both the hunters and the baby duck lovers lose!


#9

They may not understand it, but that sure doesn’t stop them from weighing in, does it?


#10

This is my specific legal field/expertise. I do think the merits of Dodd Frank are overplayed, but I have no faith that this will be a net positive. I need to see how/what is rolled back.


#11

By all indications, Trump also lost in 2008. And fared much better in Obama’s economy.

So I don’t understand it either.


#12

The low interest rate environment certainly does not make it easy to lend when returns are better elsewhere.


#13

I was appalled to see that Trump plans to at least delay by 6 months the Fiduciary Rule, meaning financial advisors will NOT have to act in their clients’ best interest. Drain the swamp, indeed.


#14

There is a 2010 movie called “Inside Job” on Netflix. Narrated by Matt Damon it explains quite a bit about the lead up to the 2008 meltdown as well as the financial system in the couple years following.


#15

The S&L crisis was caused by several things. First, federal caps on the interest rates federal S&Ls could have, along with state usury laws that applied to state institutions. Second, the interest rate spike when the Fed shrunk the money supply and caused them to lose buckets of money when savings rates went higher than their portfolio rates and also tanked the real estate market. Third, deregulation of alternative financial institutions that competed for the savings dollars and drove rates even higher. Fourth, the impatience of regulators who shut down a lot of S&Ls that could have survived had they been allowed to ride out the “spike”.

But among the reasons for the S&L crisis, under-regulation certainly wasn’t one of them.

And among the causes of the 2008 crisis, likely the biggest one was poor oversight of FNMA and FHLMC, which bought loans uncritically, and widespread belief in the “implicit” government guarantees of FNMA and FHLMC securities. Those two institutions dominated the market and determined what the other lenders did. When it was realized that some of the underlying loan packages had a lot of bad loans and the government really wouldn’t honor the “implicit” guarantee, suddenly nobody knew what the derivative securities were really worth. Not knowing what the securities were really worth, then, nobody knew, all of a sudden, which banks were solvent and which were not. So they stopped doing overnight lending (fed funds) to each other because they were not guaranteed except minimally. That caused a liquidity crisis that really did threaten to shut the economy down.

But the irony is that Dodd-Frank didn’t cure a single one of those hazards. One could argue that it made them even more perilous because of the “mark to market” rule requiring banks to “discount” securities to “market” even if they were perfectly good securities, thus threatening solvency all over again, but in a different way.

Dodd-Frank is also responsible for the new TRID regulations on home mortgages, which makes them more expensive to borrowers, more difficult to get, but never address the still-threatening problem of poor underwriting. It substituted a mechanical formula for lender discretion, and doesn’t require lenders to retain “skin in the game” to ensure that they would improve their underwriting.


#16

Laws passed in the middle of a crisis tend to be poorly thought out and have lots of unintended consequences. Dodd-Frank has certainly been a boon to big banks like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc, but small community banks have been killed by Dodd-Frank’s compliance costs.


#17

It’s a regulatory rule that should never have been adopted.

Some “financial advisors” really are independent “financial advisors”. But most “Financial advisors” are very limited kinds of people, and perhaps they shouldn’t be allowed to use that term for themselves. They are sellers of products, including insurance products and annuities. It’s like calling Walmart a “nutritional advisor”, then expecting them to impart nutritional health to their customers.

To impose fiduciary duties on them beyond what they were formerly required to exercise (basic honesty and truthfully presenting their product) is more than they are able to do. They work for the company, and if they don’t sell the product, they don’t last.

It is more proper to call, say, trust officers true “financial advisors” and some do say that. But the fiduciary duties applied to them are so extreme that they will risk absolutely nothing. That’s one of the complaints about trust companies. You might be in love with the USB or VZN or AAPL in your portfolio going in, but the very first thing they’ll do is sell them all and invest in a bond fund that has a steady but modest return, zero growth potential, and is absolutely safe from loss.

Were any of the product-selling “financial advisors” crooked? Of course. But they got hired and fired on the basis of the returns for their customers. But at least you could tell them not to sell your AAPL, and they wouldn’t. Yes, they might get tired of you and “let you go” as a customer if you never would buy their favorite annuity. But at least you knew what they were selling (they had to tell you what their product is).

Instead of trying to put a square peg into a round hole, maybe the government should have simply prohibited them from using the term “financial advisor”.


#18

It’s true. I am aware of some community banks of pretty fair size that have been forced to band together to hire people who do nothing but continuously audit the members in order to ensure that they’re complying with Dodd-Frank. Obviously, that increases consumer costs.

So now, they’re examined and regulated by the FDIC, by the Department of Finance, the independent auditors they are required to hire for annual audits, and now Dodd-Frank compliance officers. And all four audit for compliance with Dodd-Frank. It just added another layer onto an already heavily regulated industry.

And the irony of it is that if a bank goes rogue and starts making bad loans, none of those entities will catch it before it’s already a crisis.


#19

I agree with you on all points, but don’t expect the financially illiterate to even try to understand. There was no single small group of bankers that caused the crisis. There were millions of people who borrowed more money than they could reasonably repay. Many of them lied about income and debts to obtain those loans. People who could afford a modest home decided that they were entitled to their dream home. The national savings rate in the US fell below zero:eek: as people spent more than they earned and had no back up plan for even small mishaps. Both appraisers and security ratings companies made horribly unprofessional and dishonest decisions to earn higher fees. Real estate sales people get paid commissions that reward them for getting the highest possible price but many of the buyers disregarded this conflict in their purchase decision and overpaid for their houses because they could still borrow an amount greater than the true value.

The current system is just as insane, but in different ways. I recently had bankers at three different banks tell me that if I would take $100,000 out of my IRA, incur the tax liability, and spend the balance foolishly, I would be more qualified for a Home Equity Line of Credit than if I continued to save and earn tax deferred in the IRA. Having that extra $100,000 as income counts for their regulations. Having $600,000 in an IRA counts for nothing. In fact, if I would take $400,000 out of the Roth IRA, that would not count as income, and the debt to income ratio would remain the same. On what planet is the aggressive spender a better credit risk than the aggressive saver? Would someone with nearly $1,000,000 in liquid assets and strong payment record lose his home over a $300 payment? How much does the bank earn from not making good loans? This is the world under Dodd-Frank.


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.