PDA

View Full Version : Economics Sweeping bank reform bill clears House.


BigRedChief
12-11-2009, 02:07 PM
Sweeping bank reform bill clears House

Measure, aimed at preventing another big financial crisis, imposes more oversight and creates consumer protection agency.

By Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: December 11, 2009: 2:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The House passed legislation Friday aimed at preventing the next big financial crisis, ushering in the most sweeping set of changes to the banking regulatory system since the New Deal.
The bill, which passed 223-202, imposes more oversight and stronger capital cushions for the largest banks and Wall Street firms. It forces them to pay a total of as much as $150 billion into an emergency fund that could be tapped when a troubled firm needs to be taken over and broken up.

The legislation also calls for the regulation of some derivatives and creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate products such as credit cards and mortgages.

"The bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns would be not possible -- made illegal -- under this bill," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Committee, said Wednesday as debate started on the bill. "If a company fails, it'll be put to death."
The House rejected, by 223-208, an amendment that would have effectively killed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, replacing it with a council of existing regulators.

The members also voted down, by 241-188, an amendment that would have given bankruptcy judges new powers to lower balances on mortgages in order to prevent homeowners from losing their homes in foreclosure.

On the Senate side of Capitol Hill, the bill is moving much more slowly (http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/17/news/economy/regulatory_reform_killers/index.htm?postversion=2009111708) and final passage is likely months away.

The Obama administration expressed its approval of the House action.
"The president set forth clear objectives and principles for reform that were endorsed by Congressional leaders," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a statment. "House passage of this bill moves us an important step closer to meeting the president's objectives for reform."
House Republicans have been united in their opposition, saying the bill would be a permanent bailout of Wall Street and a step toward socialism. One of the bill's lead opponents, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said it would impose "sweeping draconian powers" on private businesses.
However, over the past several months, the bill has faced its biggest hurdles among Democrats.

Conservative Democrats had picked apart different sections, especially the consumer protection agency, saying they worried it would hurt small businesses.



In fact, the plan for the agency has been watered down from the version first proposed by the White House. It no longer would regulate98% of banks, mostly small banks and credit unions. It also would not create or enforce rules for auto loans, even though auto loans are among the most common issued to consumers.

The Congressional Black Caucus held up the bill at one point, citing displeasure with the lack of support for loans and jobs to those in minority communities.

To smooth things over with those lawmakers, the bill would transfer $3 billion from the federal bailout program to provide emergency loans capped at $50,000 to struggling homeowners to help them prevent foreclosure.
It also would redirect another $1 billion of bailout money into federal neighborhood stabilization programs to redevelop abandoned or foreclosed homes.

Here's what else it would do:
Federal Reserve: The bill would allow Congress to order the Government Accountability Office to audit Fed activities, which the Fed says would interfere with the central bank's ability to carry out independent monetary policy.

Derivatives: The bill attempts to shine a brighter light on some of the different kinds of complex financial products, called derivatives, that are blamed for bringing down financial companies such as American International Group (AIG (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=AIG&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/snapshots/2469.html?source=story_f500_link)) and Lehman Brothers. It would pass some of these derivatives on to clearinghouses, which would help pinpoint the value of such trades. However, some derivatives would still be unregulated, including those traded by big agricultural and airline companies to mitigate risk.

Oversight: It creates a new oversight council that would look out for major problems at large financial firms, giving the Federal Reserve a key role in enforcing tougher regulations on larger firms.

Breaking up: It would also give regulators new powers to break up companies that have grown too big, if they threaten to destabilize the financial system.

Executive Compensation: It would give shareholders the right to a nonbinding proxy vote on corporate pay packages. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bank+reform+bill+passed+by+House+-+Dec.+11%2C+2009&expire=-1&urlID=416535317&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2009%2F12%2F11%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Ffinancial_regulatory_reform%2#TOP )
First Published: December 11, 2009: 11:00 AM ET


<!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc>http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/11/news/economy/financial_regulatory_reform/index.htm </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

BigRedChief
12-11-2009, 02:08 PM
okay all you financial gurus what the hell does this mean? I like the part of any future bailouts or proposed bailouts would be illegal. And it can audit the Federal Reserve now.

kcfanXIII
12-11-2009, 03:04 PM
all i know if frank is behind this in any way, its probably good for the banks...

mikey23545
12-11-2009, 03:09 PM
all i know if Frank is behind this in any way, its probably good for Frank...

FYP.

BigRedChief
12-11-2009, 03:11 PM
all i know if frank is behind this in any way, its probably good for the banks...:sulk:

KC native
12-11-2009, 03:44 PM
Too soon to really tell because I haven't seen anyone get into the meat of it yet. I've read something about certain derivatives being exempt from regulation but the language just after it guts the whole point of regulation of those derivatives. So, I'm going to see what's out there after this weekend before I start making any judgements. I'm more than likely going to come down in the camp of this doesn't go far enough as this bill has been watered down by moderate dems who the banks have by the ear.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 03:46 PM
It creates a new Agency. Now that should make everyone feel good. I the Govt cracks down on Credit Card Companies and starts to set the fees and interest rates then CC Co's will begin to restrict greatly who can qualify for CC's. Won't hurt many but will be a big hoopla when that happens. Looks like a big cesspool in the long run that can hurt marginal consumers, retailers, and make the government look like fools for setting it up....if that is what they plan to do.


I'd say lawyers are the big winners. And Government gains more control over stuff they have no business being in. Hopefully the Senate tosses this in the crapper with Cap n Tax.

Derivitaves need regulation but by someone who understands them, not some hack like Barney Frank.

Exec Comp is nothing that will impact much of anything. For stockholders to independently gather enough votes to determing exec comp would be nearly impossible without institutional votes swinging big time against a Board of directors and that is unlikely.

alpha_omega
12-11-2009, 03:46 PM
How about....

"Don't buy $hit you can't afford"...wouldn't that work?

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 03:47 PM
all i know if frank is behind this in any way, its probably gonna result in some guys getting ****ed...

FYP

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 03:54 PM
Exec Comp is nothing that will impact much of anything. For stockholders to independently gather enough votes to determing exec comp would be nearly impossible without institutional votes swinging big time against a Board of directors and that is unlikely.

Actually, I think this might be more beneficial than it appears. YES, stock voters probably won't be able to create such a consensus, BUT to vote on it, such a rule WILL require executive compensantion structure to be public information in a publicly held company.

As a consequence, the stock market can respond to executive compensation structure. Presumably, the market will be able to learn that certain bonus packages actually provide incentives for executives to act AGAINST stockholder interest. Over time, compensation structures that allowed Countrywide's CEO to make 160 million in three years, while demolishing his company will be seen as market liabilities and will 'hopefully', drive down the stock price.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 04:45 PM
I guess I don't understand why giving shareholders a nonbinding proxy vote would achieve anything different than the status quo?

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 05:22 PM
I guess I don't understand why giving shareholders a nonbinding proxy vote would achieve anything different than the status quo?

racist

Taco John
12-11-2009, 06:34 PM
Financial Regulatory Bill Passes Congress - Paul Amendment Attached
Posted by Matt Hawes on 12/11/09
Last updated 12/11/09



It looks like the House will be voting on Barney Frank's H.R. 4173 today anywhere between 1:45 and 2:15 eastern. The vote could be extremely close.

Get contact information for your representative here, and urge him to vote against granting the Federal Reserve and Congress even more power to interfere in our economy. Tell him to support true economic reform by fighting for a standalone vote on Audit the Fed!

Update: The bill passed the House 223-202. You can find the roll call here.

Update #2: So here's the good news: the Paul amendment passed with the bill! No matter how bad the overall bill, it's still pretty incredible that we were able to get a thorough audit of the Fed all the way through the House.

The bad news: the overall bill is awful, so we will continue to oppose it as this debate shifts to the Senate, where it is likely to take at least a few months - if not fall off the radar entirely.

We will continue to work to pass S 604 in the Senate (and we may get a vote soon if Senators DeMint, Sanders, Vitter, and Bunning can delay Bernanke's confirmation), and we will keep working to get Audit the Fed a standalone vote in the House. After all, we can now tell 223 Dems that they already voted for a thorough audit! They just need to pass it on its own merits, instead of hiding it in an overall package that would increase the ability of the federal government to intervene in the economy.

Taco John
12-11-2009, 06:47 PM
Ron Paul is an incredible man. The bill he's worked his life to see voted on gets added to a piece of bad legislation, and rather than sell out his principles and vote for the bad legislation, he works to vote the entire thing down, still aiming to get his up or down vote on his legislation.

I have never see someone as committed to excellence as Ron Paul.

Saul Good
12-12-2009, 11:47 AM
Ron Paul is an incredible man. The bill he's worked his life to see voted on gets added to a piece of bad legislation, and rather than sell out his principles and vote for the bad legislation, he works to vote the entire thing down, still aiming to get his up or down vote on his legislation.

I have never see someone as committed to excellence as Ron Paul.

I've got to hand it to him. He really seems to stick to his principles. I wish I had voted for him.

Calcountry
12-12-2009, 12:46 PM
FYPF****ed in the A***.

FY(FYP).

Calcountry
12-12-2009, 12:48 PM
I've got to hand it to him. He really seems to stick to his principles. I wish I had voted for him.While this may be true, you have to have a deal maker to get things accomplished as President. For Exibit A, I give you the current dumshit. He has 60 Senate votes, and huge margins in the House, and it is the Republicans fault for bottling up his agenda? WTF?

kcfanXIII
12-12-2009, 03:38 PM
I've got to hand it to him. He really seems to stick to his principles. I wish I had voted for him.

don't blame me, i did. all you have to do is hear the guy talk. i wouldn't say he's a great speaker or anything, the guy just flat out makes since. every word i hear come out of his mouth. the gop are fuggin morons if they run palin /random patsy out there in 2012

kcfanXIII
12-12-2009, 03:40 PM
While this may be true, you have to have a deal maker to get things accomplished as President. For Exibit A, I give you the current dumshit. He has 60 Senate votes, and huge margins in the House, and it is the Republicans fault for bottling up his agenda? WTF?

what we need is a president who doesn't have an agenda other than restoring liberty to our republic. what we need is a president who wants to shrink the fed gov not expand it. ron paul is exactly what this country needs. too bad most of it is too ignorant to understand this.

Taco John
12-12-2009, 06:21 PM
While this may be true, you have to have a deal maker to get things accomplished as President. For Exibit A, I give you the current dumshit. He has 60 Senate votes, and huge margins in the House, and it is the Republicans fault for bottling up his agenda? WTF?


I'd rather have a president who doesn't make deals with our liberty, and allows us to make our own deals.

Garcia Bronco
12-14-2009, 12:01 PM
How about....

"Don't buy $hit you can't afford"...wouldn't that work?

Amen. That's how all this shit started....effing credit.

wild1
12-14-2009, 12:12 PM
The Obama administration expressed its approval of the House action.


This is becoming virtually synonymous with "It expands the government's power and will be shockingly expensive"

KC native
12-14-2009, 02:33 PM
This is becoming virtually synonymous with "It expands the government's power and will be shockingly expensive"

:spock: As opposed to how expensive no regulation has been?

The Mad Crapper
12-14-2009, 05:19 PM
:spock: As opposed to how expensive no regulation has been?

That's an idiotic statement. What do you think the SEC is for?

Donger
12-14-2009, 05:23 PM
That's an idiotic statement. What do you think the SEC is for?

KC native has issues with absolutes. Just an FYI.

KC native
12-15-2009, 02:01 AM
That's an idiotic statement. What do you think the SEC is for?

What exactly did the SEC do to prevent this? Did you miss when the SEC raised the leverage limit for specific firms many of which no longer exist?

KC native
12-15-2009, 02:02 AM
KC native has issues with absolutes. Just an FYI.

Donger is a pedantic asshole. Just an FYI.

The Mad Crapper
12-15-2009, 09:08 AM
What exactly did the SEC do to prevent this? Did you miss when the SEC raised the leverage limit for specific firms many of which no longer exist?

That was my point, you idiot, the SEC didn't do anything to prevent it.

KC native
12-15-2009, 09:11 AM
That was my point, you idiot, the SEC didn't do anything to prevent it.

Perhaps you should learn the conventions of the English language because you didn't make a point let alone a clear one in your post.

The Mad Crapper
12-15-2009, 09:47 AM
Perhaps you should learn the conventions of the English language because you didn't make a point let alone a clear one in your post.

Regulation is useless if the commission that is designed to enforce it does not do it's job.

KC native
12-15-2009, 09:53 AM
Regulation is useless if the commission that is designed to enforce it does not do it's job.

:spock: Hence my description of no regulation. The Bush appointment to the SEC did absolutely nothing for 6 years and even tried to turn down extra funding so the agency could more vigorously do their job because she said they didn't need it.

The Mad Crapper
12-15-2009, 10:07 AM
:spock: Hence my description of no regulation. The Bush appointment to the SEC did absolutely nothing for 6 years and even tried to turn down extra funding so the agency could more vigorously do their job because she said they didn't need it.

So why do we need new legislation? So congress can look like they are doing something? just enforce the legislation we have now.

KC native
12-15-2009, 10:27 AM
So why do we need new legislation? So congress can look like they are doing something? just enforce the legislation we have now.

JFC? Really? If you think the existing regulation is fine then you've had your head up your ass for the last two years and have no idea what happened during this crisis.

The Mad Crapper
12-15-2009, 10:59 AM
JFC? Really? If you think the existing regulation is fine then you've had your head up your ass for the last two years and have no idea what happened during this crisis.

You just blamed the "Bush appointee" to the SEC two posts up, you jackass.

KC native
12-15-2009, 11:19 AM
You just blamed the "Bush appointee" to the SEC two posts up, you jackass.

You've gotta be a disHonest dupe. No one else can possibly be this stupid.

You do realize that this crisis was many years in the making and there were many facets to it right(Most importantly, the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the CFMA.)?

The Mad Crapper
12-15-2009, 11:29 AM
You've gotta be a disHonest dupe. No one else can possibly be this stupid.

You do realize that this crisis was many years in the making and there were many facets to it right(Most importantly, the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the CFMA.)?


You stated that there was "no regulation". Then you said, that there was regulation, it's just that the Bush appointee in the SEC didn't enforce the rules.

Stop being a partisan hack and pull your head out of your ass.

KC native
12-15-2009, 11:34 AM
You stated that there was "no regulation". Then you said, that there was regulation, it's just that the Bush appointee in the SEC didn't enforce the rules.

Stop being a partisan hack and pull your head out of your ass.

:shake: I've assigned blame to both sides of the aisle. You're conflating many events (and the different types of regulation) and it shows that you have no clue of what the fuck you are talking about.

It's clear who the partisan hack is here. It's also clear who doesn't have anything to add to the discussion.

The Mad Crapper
12-15-2009, 11:35 AM
:shake: I've assigned blame to both sides of the aisle. You're conflating many events (and the different types of regulation) and it shows that you have no clue of what the **** you are talking about.

It's clear who the partisan hack is here. It's also clear who doesn't have anything to add to the discussion.


Hands on ears....

grab hold....

and pull!

Your head should pop right out.

KC native
12-15-2009, 11:37 AM
Hands on ears....

grab hold....

and pull!

Your head should pop right out.

So whose dupe are you?

Calcountry
12-15-2009, 11:42 AM
I'd rather have a president who doesn't make deals with our liberty, and allows us to make our own deals.Like that scatterbrain Ron Paul?

Very intelligent, however, his thoughts do not focus on a single train of thought for more than 4 seconds. He is too easily excited, and jumps from thought to thought. I watched him interviewed on CNBC this morning, and found myself, actively listening, waiting for the point. The CNBC crew just let him run on and on. He eventually made it, but damn. I shudder to think of the attention span of the economically illiterate listening to this, it will never happen.

Where in my post, did I ever suggest that I would sacrifice my liberty for a deal? The sole point I was trying to make, is that to be an effective President, you have to work together with people who all have various points of view, and different interests. Leaders are able to work within that framework, dumshit losers like Obama cannot.

The Mad Crapper
12-15-2009, 11:54 AM
The bill would allow Congress to order the Government Accountability Office to audit Fed activities, which the Fed says would interfere with the central bank's ability to carry out independent monetary policy.

I wouldn't hold my breathe.

KC native
12-15-2009, 12:20 PM
[

I wouldn't hold my breathe.

ROFL definitely disHonest! Haven't seen him here today and then someone who has taken the name of the chick with the largest breats comes around and pursues disHonest's usual stupid posting style.