Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit
Here's what appears to be an objective summary of the whole bill:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_fi...mary_Final.pdf
I see the following as positive elements: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, some of the banking regs, first time hedge fund and executive compensation regs, and parts of the mortgage regs. I don't have enough background knowledge to judge some of the other provisions. Nor do I know enough to judge any of the other provisions as counterproductive, or 'abominable'.
Of course, 'the devil's in the details'. The benefits derived from regs like these may not fully materialize without persistent, long term effort by Congress and the President to make them work. One problem now, for example, is the Republican Senate opposition bloc of any nominee to head the Consumer BPB. Their opposition stems from the fear that the bureau head would have too much power. (to champion consumer causes).
I still can't understand vk's reasons for an entirely negative view. |
Let's try it this way. The Sarbanes Oxley Act was enacted following the Enron , et al scandals. It has created a nightmare for business especially middle and smaller firms because these employers hire two people to meet compliance regulation for every three people they hire.
Frank-Dodd is Sarbanes on steriods. All this act will do is to push companies to move their operations overseas.
The populist notion that you are curtailing big bankers ,et al greedy profits schemes (i.e portecting consumers is well B as in B and S as in S) However I do agree that governement should monitor what bankers insurers etc do but they went way overboard on that objective. Personally I believe as with the Obama Admin this was all about governement control and not protecting consumers
VK gives a good accounting of Gramm /Bliley Act. I lived through it but from the insurance company's perspective.