House Republicans Pass Bill to Rip Up Post-Crisis Bank Rules

a reply to: toysforadults

All I saw was blind faith in something that nobody has ever seen, free markets.

That is the weakest argument but it wins a portion of people over every time.

Everyone here does realize how D-F actually HELPED the big banks and killed off small community banks, right?

a reply to: Throes

They have no idea. This is a bi-partisan shouting match, it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the regulation it has everything to do with the fact that it was repealed by Republicans and Trump and the fact that it was implement by Obama.

The facts of the act are beside the point, I know this because if anything else were true we actually be having a decent conversation about it and the multiple post describing the how and why of what you just stated were ignored.

originally posted by: Throes
Everyone here does realize how D-F actually HELPED the big banks and killed off small community banks, right?

Helped the banks? Care to explain yourself? Because the banks have been literally lobbying to have Dodd-Frank removed since the day it was passed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because the banks have been literally lobbying to have Dodd-Frank removed since the day it was passed.

Why?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because the banks have been literally lobbying to have Dodd-Frank removed since the day it was passed.

Why?

Not going to work. You need to go do your homework first. I'm not your teacher or your parents. You can do your own research. I'm not going to teach you a bill that you've already decided you don't support before even knowing what's in it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

More likely that you have no idea.

If you actually had any interests in this topic you would have explained why originally. You would have said, "The banks did this because of this".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Throes
Everyone here does realize how D-F actually HELPED the big banks and killed off small community banks, right?

Helped the banks? Care to explain yourself? Because the banks have been literally lobbying to have Dodd-Frank removed since the day it was passed.

It doesn't directly help banks, it hurts them. However, added regulation hurts small banks the most. The added overhead and operational costs of adhering to the new regulations was unsustainable for small banks. They bigger banks capitalized on this and starting buying out the smaller community banks. Ever since it was enacted we lost a fair share of small community banks, I believe one is still in operation out of four. The other three were bought by the likes of Wells Fargo and such.

So, directly, the regulation hurt all the banks, but smaller ones couldn't overcome the added operational costs like a larger bank could so the larger banks capitalized on this.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Krazysh0t

More likely that you have no idea.

Believe what you want, but you are the one who admitted not knowing whats in the bill in the thread already. Not me. You also wrote a thread about the bill being repealed without knowing what's in the bill. Not me. Your embracing of ignorance is on display publicly already. Not me.

If you actually had any interests in this topic you would have explained why originally. You would have said, "The banks did this because of this".

I have TONS of interest in this topic. I just don't feel like playing nanny to someone whose ego is too big to admit that he needs to go brush up on his knowledge before continuing to speak on the subject he is speaking on.

a reply to: Throes

I wouldn't argue that Dodd-Frank was perfect. Hell, I wouldn't even argue it was close to perfect, but it is definitely better than nothing. Nothing is what caused the 2008 crash. My parents were causalities of that # and they still haven't recovered financially to the point they were at before. In fact, they are divorced now.

If anything we should be strengthening the bill and getting rid of the loop holes like the one you just mentioned.

Fine. I will create 1 last post with information regarding why this was bad and what was actually repealed.

NPR

Hensarling's nearly 600-page bill would defang Dodd-Frank by repealing the so-called Volcker Rule, which prevents government-insured banks from making risky bets with investments. It would also scrap a requirement, which goes into effect Friday, that retirement advisers put their clients' interests ahead of their own.

Free market principle #1 - if a bank is making risky bets with your money and losing, stop using that bank. That enables another bank to offer a superior products therefore evolving the markets in a way that allows companies to organically create a better service/ product at a better price. I get it though, you don't want the responsibility of having to know what the bank is actually doing with your money so you want daddy government to handle that for you.

The CFPB was created under Dodd-Frank and is designed to operate as an independent watchdog with a single director. Hensarling considers its structure to be undemocratic. Comey Accuses White House Of 'Lies, Plain And Simple' About His Firing POLITICS Comey Accuses White House Of 'Lies, Plain And Simple' About His Firing "To think in a democracy that one un-elected individual can functionally decide what credit cards go in our wallets, what mortgages we can have on our home, whether or not we even have a checking account. I mean, that's just anathema to me to the founding principles of this republic," Hensarling said while speaking last month at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

Do you really want some financial dictator telling you what you can and can't do with your money?

If I want to take a risk and my bank wants to take a risk that's between us and daddy government needs to mind it's business. Also daddy government needs to not be there ready to bail us out if we make a bad choice. I want the freedom of being able to take a risk.

"The bill even specifically exempts payday and car title lenders — notorious for springing devastating debt traps for their already vulnerable customers — from any regulation," added Yana Miles, senior legislative counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending.

Why??? care to explain???

Study .edu

Regulatory policies affect the profitability of banks by imposing added costs to comply with the policies and by decreasing revenue making certain investments unattainable or noncompliant.

The next question should be how?

Since the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, 10,000 new regulatory restrictions under Title 12 have been imposed on banks

Article 12, Law.Cornell

Despite this emphasis on those financial institutions that have would have the greatest impact if failure occurred, banks of all sizes have no doubt experienced increased regulatory oversight. A 2010 survey of small banks reported 80% of respondents stating they saw an increase in compliance costs at their respective lending institution (Peirce, Robinson and Stratmann 2014).

So even though Dodd-Frank was meant to target to big to fail banks the poorly constructed bill overshot it's boundaries and added undue regulation to all banks allowing for a greater monopoly and consolidation.

Seven of the 16 titles impact small commercial banks (Marsh and Norman, 2013). Anecdotally, it is easy to see that a bank with over $50 billion dollars of assets can more easily absorb the compliance costs than a bank with only $175 million of assets.

NYTimes

When regulations – not consumers – drive consolidation, banking system risk increases. Dodd-Frank’s “Wall Street” focus snares community banks in an increasingly complex web of rules designed for larger banks. As such, the law forces well-managed institutions to unnecessarily divert resources to compliance (survey data shows community banks are doing just that), or worse, to close their doors. Minneapolis Fed research suggests that adding just two members to the compliance department would make a third of the smallest banks unprofitable.

As the Bank of England’s Andrew Haldane accurately noted in 2012, regulatory simplicity is key to combating risks brought about by increasing financial system complexity. By adding massive layers of rules atop an already convoluted U.S. bank regulatory framework, Dodd-Frank inherently drives consolidation. A costly web of uncoordinated bank regulations crafted around past financial crises distracts U.S. banks from designing and implementing more effective firm-tailored risk management strategies. Simplifying U.S. bank regulation is critical to reducing financial system risk.

This is what it looks like to take a proper position and defend it in a debate on ATS.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I say let the banks fail, it may result in the economy crashing but sometimes sacrifices have to be made if we ever hope to make progress.

Banks need to fail if they go down that path. The reality is banks are too big to actually fully fail even with zero bailout. They could lose trillions and not disappear...lol

We still have credit unions as a option.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Believe what you want, but you are the one who admitted not knowing whats in the bill in the thread already. Not me. You also wrote a thread about the bill being repealed without knowing what's in the bill. Not me. Your embracing of ignorance is on display publicly already. Not me.

Flat out lies. Answer my last post.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Throes

I wouldn't argue that Dodd-Frank was perfect. Hell, I wouldn't even argue it was close to perfect, but it is definitely better than nothing. Nothing is what caused the 2008 crash. My parents were causalities of that # and they still haven't recovered financially to the point they were at before. In fact, they are divorced now.

If anything we should be strengthening the bill and getting rid of the loop holes like the one you just mentioned.

I didn't mention a loop hole. Small banks couldn't afford to comply to the regulations so they made the decision to sell their assets to someone who could afford it.

It also affects small business as well. It limits their means of obtaining credit even in small sums which prevents them from taking on more business.

a reply to: Throes

I know you didn't. I did. I see that problem as a loophole that can be closed. The Dodd-Frank bill could be edited to be a tiered approach so it isn't so relentless to the smaller banks.

a reply to: Throes

It also affects small business as well. It limits their means of obtaining credit even in small sums which prevents them from taking on more business.

The biggest thing here is it's not up to the government to tell us what risk we can take with out assets, it's not up to them to tell the banks what risk they can take either.

The takeaway is that if you make bad choices with your money and assets you lose them. You adapt and the free market moves on. It's very simple.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Throes

I know you didn't. I did. I see that problem as a loophole that can be closed. The Dodd-Frank bill could be edited to be a tiered approach so it isn't so relentless to the smaller banks.

It's a 2,300 page document the bill was garbage and needed to be repealed.

Make better choices with your money and stop blaming the banks for your ill informed risk taking behavior.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Believe what you want, but you are the one who admitted not knowing whats in the bill in the thread already. Not me. You also wrote a thread about the bill being repealed without knowing what's in the bill. Not me. Your embracing of ignorance is on display publicly already. Not me.

Flat out lies. Answer my last post.

Really? Must have been some other poster named toysforadults that said this:

Care to explain the mechanics behind Dodd Frank and how effective it was??

This is what it looks like to take a proper position and defend it in a debate on ATS.

Copying and pasting other people's text with little to no words or opinions of your own suggesting you understood it? I've been at ATS for a while now, but when did debate position quality become so low standard?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Throes

It also affects small business as well. It limits their means of obtaining credit even in small sums which prevents them from taking on more business.

The biggest thing here is it's not up to the government to tell us what risk we can take with out assets, it's not up to them to tell the banks what risk they can take either.

The takeaway is that if you make bad choices with your money and assets you lose them. You adapt and the free market moves on. It's very simple.

I'm a Libertarian, I agree.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Throes

I know you didn't. I did. I see that problem as a loophole that can be closed. The Dodd-Frank bill could be edited to be a tiered approach so it isn't so relentless to the smaller banks.

It's a 2,300 page document the bill was garbage and needed to be repealed.

Make better choices with your money and stop blaming the banks for your ill informed risk taking behavior.

HA! I don't trust banks even with Dodd Frank. That's why I don't have any credit accounts. I used to work for Bank of America (during the 2008 crash even). I know ALL about big banks' shady practices to rip off their customers.