Dodd-Frank Act: The End of Banking

By PETER WALLISON From the American Enterprise Institute The dominant theme of the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is fear of instability and change, which the act suppresses by subjecting the largest financial firms to banklike regulation. The competitiveness, innovativeness, and risk taking that have always characterized U.S. financial firms will, under this new structure, inevitably be subordinated to supervisory judgments about what these firms can safely be allowed to do. But the worst element of this system is that the extraordinary power given to regulators–and particularly the Federal Reserve–is likely to change the nature of the U.S. financial system. Where financial firms once focused on beating their competitors, they will now focus on currying favor with their regulator, which will have the power to control their every move. What may ultimately emerge is a partnership between the largest financial firms and the Federal Reserve–a partnership in which the Fed protects them from failure and excessive competition and they in turn curb their competitive instincts to carry out the government’s policies and directions. In addition, with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the act abandons a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress retains the power to control the agencies of the executive branch. These wholesale changes in traditional relationships are hard to explain except as the triumph of a fundamentally different view–a corporatist political model more characteristic of Europe–of the government’s role in the U.S. economy. Key points in this Outlook: …Continue Reading

Bank Regulation on Securitization

Due to the passing of the Dodd-Frank Bill it is clear that tighter rules for securitization are right around the corning. Many agencies are concerned an uneasy about this new legislation. At worst, government efforts to rein in issuers of asset-backed securities could produce three separate regulations, each with its own elements. While the three rules would all largely do the same thing — strengthening disclosure and requiring issuers to retain 5% of the credit risk from a securitization — they have significant differences. A 5% requirement will cause for Bank pricing to increase and will be passed on to the consumer as a trickle down effect. In an interview Cristeena Naser, a senior counsel for the American Bankers Association said, “When there are all these balls up in the air, you can’t expect businesses to make systems changes … until the dust settles. They need to be coordinated. Nobody is saying that we don’t need changes to the process, but we need a uniform change to allow businesses to make decisions.” Regulators have stated that there is coordination across agencies however each regulator the FDIC and SEC are pursuing separate paths because they each deal with specialized jurisdictions. “Every regulator has jurisdiction over certain areas, and we have jurisdiction over the receivership rules. The SEC has jurisdiction over the securities rules,” said Michael Krimminger, the deputy to the FDIC chairman for policy. “Just because someone comes out first with a rule and someone comes out second with a rule …Continue Reading

 

August 2010
M T W T F S S
    Sep »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Recent Comments:

Popular Content: