House Passes Deregulation Bill Written by Citigroup

So the one I'm going to focus on is the one that was driven by Citibank that would allow a wide range of financial derivatives to be done directly by the bank, which is to say, the insured entity, which is to say, the government would be on the hook if there were losses. And Dodd-Frank was designed to prevent or at least dramatically minimize that. So this is a truly awful bill.

www.truth-out.org...

Not well organized or written but important. There is video for you video fans. No Mention of the Bill number or name.

"They're Back" Not that they were ever gone.

reply to post by FyreByrd


I'd ask WTF is wrong with governments these days to allow this kind of crap, but I already know the answer.

Cheers - Dave

Part of the problem is that Dodd-Frank didn't get rid of the existing derivatives exposures trouble.

This latest bill seems to be focusing on:

"insured depository institution" and inserting "covered depository institution"

"Covered" seems to include foreign banks that may not currently be included in:

Regulation K of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (12 C.F.R. 211.21(o)))

I think all that may be some new regulations being dictated by the foreign B.I.S. committee:

"Basel Committee"

We should study their regulations because the Federal Reserve is in the middle of implementing:

the "Basel III" accords.

here's the bill text (partial) ....

SEC. 2. REFORM OF PROHIBITION ON SWAP ACTIVITY ASSISTANCE.

Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 8305) is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)--

(A) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking `insured depository institution' and inserting `covered depository institution'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) COVERED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION- The term `covered depository institution' means--

`(A) an insured depository institution, as that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and

`(B) a United States uninsured branch or agency of a foreign bank.';

(2) in subsection (c)--

(A) in the heading for such subsection, by striking `Insured' and inserting `Covered';

(B) by striking `an insured' and inserting `a covered';

(C) by striking `such insured' and inserting `such covered'; and

(D) by striking `or savings and loan holding company' and inserting `savings and loan holding company, or foreign banking organization (as such term is defined under Regulation K of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (12 C.F.R. 211.21(o)))';

H.R.992 -- Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act (Referred in Senate - RFS)

Why don't they just give them a blank check book and let them take early retirement. We truly are slaves, we work to get taxed to pay the rich to get richer

reply to post by GreyGoo


Well that is what the QEs are for. a monthly payment for the now to humungous to fail to keep doing the same crap they did that brought the nation to a stand still and cause regular Americans to lose some of their retirement.

America is run by private interest, what else can you expect from the whores in congress but more facilitation for them to keep screwing the people.

reply to post by FyreByrd


We are so screwed. This is much of what got us in this mess in the first place. Our only hope is that the Senate votes it down.

Another reason to get rid of them all.

edit

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I'd ask WTF is wrong with governments these days to allow this kind of crap, but I already know the answer.

Cheers - Dave

Its funny because most people here on ATS want less government so they can have liberties and freedoms and free market capitalism, yet when the government wants to deregulate something, ATS freaks out.

Can someone please explain this hypocrisy ?

reply to post by xuenchen


The reason for the " foreign" to be so much of an issue with Citicorp is because one of the Saudi Prices is the one that owns the majority of the stocks in that bank.

He also was awarded about the same sum of money that he lost during the 2008 market crash. So now is legal.

reply to post by gorgi


Yeah, less government, but when a criminal banking organization writes a bill, I mean c'mon, they're writing it for a reason, that being to benefit themselves. How many times have we seen this crap in the past? I've lost.

Cheers - Dave