d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Dodd Frank And The Choice Act
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Jun 19 2017 11:16am
http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/08/the-financial-choice-act-doesnt-repeal-d

I liked the above article the most. I'm curious what you all think of the potential "repeal" of Dodd-Frank and the changes that will be made. Dodd-Frank is extremely complex so I'm not sure who here has a great understanding of it, but I think it's still worth talking about.

How do you all feel about changing Dodd-Frank?
Do you think Dodd-Frank puts too much red tape on the economy or do you think it's necessary to prevent what happened in 2008?
Do you feel a certain way about specific parts of Dodd-Frank that you think need reform?

I have plenty of thoughts, but I'll let others lead :)
Member
Posts: 53,137
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Jun 19 2017 11:18am
dodd-frank, more aptly named 'status-quo' really made a big difference /s
at least they arent handing out 500k+ mortgages to anyone with a pulse like in 2007, although i'm sure theyll try again soon.
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Jun 19 2017 11:29am
not surprised to see a libertarian website praising policies that harm average joe's for the benefit of financial corporations by going after the cfpb
Member
Posts: 30,160
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
Jun 19 2017 12:24pm
trump deregulating banks again, what could possibly go wrong? we all know those are responsible institutions that would never speculate beyond reason - and these damn regulations are just hurting the economy, not protecting the american taxpayer from another massive bailout, right?

this it what it looks like when a true american patriot gives back power to "the people" i guess...
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Jun 19 2017 12:36pm
Quote (excellence @ Jun 19 2017 12:18pm)
dodd-frank, more aptly named 'status-quo' really made a big difference /s
at least they arent handing out 500k+ mortgages to anyone with a pulse like in 2007, although i'm sure theyll try again soon.


Dodd-Frank actually carries a good bit of weight. I find a lot of value in having the SEC oversee what they probably should've already been overseeing with derivative trading and credit default swaps so that AIG can't leverage themselves 10x what they could afford. I also like that banks aren't permitted to own, invest or sponsor hedge funds or priv equity through the Volcker rule. The FSOC is good for media, but sometimes isn't very effective, I agree. They're supposed to make sure Moodys and S&P don't give fake ratings, which is a plus, but VERY difficult to actually enforce. I like that people are rewarded for reporting financial fraud, but I fear it may be abused and be very costly.

I don't think it's status quo. I think people with money and power say that because otherwise the stock market wouldn't have risen as fast as it did haha.

Quote (duffman316 @ Jun 19 2017 12:29pm)
not surprised to see a libertarian website praising policies that harm average joe's for the benefit of financial corporations by going after the cfpb


I don't believe in having a non-partisan media source. I could've posted CNN, Forbes or anything else and someone would've said something about a bias.

Quote (fender @ Jun 19 2017 01:24pm)
trump deregulating banks again, what could possibly go wrong? we all know those are responsible institutions that would never speculate beyond reason - and these damn regulations are just hurting the economy, not protecting the american taxpayer from another massive bailout, right?

this it what it looks like when a true american patriot gives back power to "the people" i guess...


It's a tough call actually. As a bipartisan guy myself, I view this purely from a financial perspective in what's best for the US to grow (which includes not blowing up into a million pieces of dust in another crash/recession). I want my (and other's) 401k's to grow at a high rate while also not doing shady things that can result in a crash or recession.

Dodd-Frank is extremely complex and causes banks to have to spend tons of time and money going over super basic ways of proving they aren't doing corrupt shit. That sucks because it stifles growth. However, I again, understand why we have these rules in place.

At the end of the day, it's all about having a balance where banks can't do insane stuff like they did in 2008 (really the whole 2000s, and before that too), but they have enough mobility to grow the economy and in turn, our investment accounts.

For full disclosure, I tend to lean on the "you should've let the big banks fail" side, rather than bailing them out.
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Jun 19 2017 12:49pm
Quote (AspenSniper @ Jun 19 2017 01:36pm)
Dodd-Frank is extremely complex and causes banks to have to spend tons of time and money going over super basic ways of proving they aren't doing corrupt shit. That sucks because it stifles growth. However, I again, understand why we have these rules in place.


if they didn't have a habit of doing corrupt shit (see wells fargo) when no one is watching such regulations wouldn't be necessary

i'd argue what we have in place doesn't go far enough, there needs to be a means to throw banking executives in prison for some of the things they do

This post was edited by duffman316 on Jun 19 2017 12:52pm
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Jun 19 2017 12:53pm
Quote (duffman316 @ Jun 19 2017 01:49pm)
if they didn't have a habit of doing corrupt shit (see wells fargo) when no one is watching such regulations wouldn't be necessary


Well duh. I say the same line over and over, wall street drinks the alcohol that the US government pours. That's why regulations have to exist.

Also, Wells-Fargo is such a joke of a case. The main thing they did was add accounts unknowingly to their customers. My bank, not Wells Fargo, did this to me once too. Added a savings account that ran in the background with $0 in it. It didn't show up on my online banking. I went into a branch and someone (as always) asked if I wanted to deposit money into my savings account, which was different than when they usually ask if I want to start a .00000001% savings account with them. I said, I don't have a savings account, and they showed me that I did.

My point being, Wells-Fargo is not the only bank to do this, though they did it at a greater pace. The problem that happened with Wells is that they were absolute fucking idiots and either accidentally (more likely) or purposely started billing fees against these accounts. Bank performance is often judged on the # of accounts/customer. So I actually think it was an accident that this cost their customers money honestly. I think they just wanted to boost their ratio and fucked up. I think that's a big reason why it wasn't detected sooner by the government too, because it's really not a big deal to have spare accounts in your name as long as no fees accrue.

Anyways, that's my sidebar theory on the Wells Fargo thing.

Quote (duffman316 @ Jun 19 2017 01:49pm)
if they didn't have a habit of doing corrupt shit (see wells fargo) when no one is watching such regulations wouldn't be necessary

i'd argue what we have in place doesn't go far enough, there needs to be a means to throw banking executives in prison for some of the things they do


Sarbanes Oxley actually has stronger mechanisms for putting execs in prison, but for a flurry of reasons, those powers weren't used in 2008/2009. Imo, the main reason none of them were jailed is because the US government didn't want to throw the economy into a tizzy. They had to either play nice with Pandit, Dimon and all the other CEOs and let them make the money back, or get rid of them all, jail them, indict them, etc., and watch stocks fall even further.

I think that's more likely what went down.

This post was edited by AspenSniper on Jun 19 2017 12:55pm
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Jun 19 2017 12:58pm
Quote (duffman316 @ Jun 19 2017 12:29pm)
not surprised to see a libertarian website praising policies that harm average joe's for the benefit of financial corporations by going after the cfpb


The cpfb is just a tiny part of the overall act, and the rest of the act did nothing to protect the public.
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Jun 19 2017 01:08pm
Quote (Santara @ Jun 19 2017 01:58pm)
The cpfb is just a tiny part of the overall act, and the rest of the act did nothing to protect the public.


You can't make a statement like that and not defend it. Explain this one.
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Jun 19 2017 09:35pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll