Dodd-Frank Replacement

Slashsnake

VIP Member
Aug 5, 2016
589
48
68
There hasn't been enough talk about the potential Dodd-Frank replacement.

Warning: Some of this stuff has more to do with other financial acts, but could be amended and added to Dodd-Frank in a shape or form.


"House Republican legislation meant to replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law is headed to the floor soon, the chairman responsible for the bill said Thursday.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told reporters that the panel is scheduled to vote on the sweeping legislative package Tuesday and the full House will vote on it "shortly thereafter."


- Washington Examiner Author: Lawler, Joseph (2017).

I don't like decreasing consumer protections, such as the CFPB (Consumer Finance Protection Bureau). I think many parts of the law should stay while many go the way of the dumpster. Not only will the middle class remain protected with certain protections like the CFPB remaining, but the Democrats may be able to agree with passing the law, or at least have a better chance of passing it in the Senate if it includes those middle-class protections.

I like the idea of the banks not being "insured" by the taxpayers, but the idea that the taxpayers' funds at those banks/credit unions are insured by the FDIC and/or the NCUA (if they have an account at both a bank and credit union) so we can let the banks fail rather than bail them out. I also want to see credit unions buying out mortgages and personal loans at failed community and "big banks" for people, and requiring membership for the people whose loan they bought out. When we see banks like Wells Fargo buying out loans from other financial institutions, it's not as favorable to the customer compared to what a credit union would be able to do for them. I think this proposal would help get democrats on board with a new law that would be drafted up to replace or "fix" Dodd-Frank. Credit unions also have a smaller chance of failing due to their business nature and it will increase the number of places failed big bank loans can be bought out from, and probably offer more favorable terms, too.

I'd like to see the Durbin Amendment go. I'm not sure how democrats feel about this (well except for idiot boy Durbin himself), but it hurts everyone involved in the banking business. It hurts the middle-class by taking away free checking options (at big banks and even many community banks), it takes away debit card rewards, it added debit routing fees at some credit unions, it's raised other fees, and it's effected some EMV programming at certain merchants because it's more difficult (see Rite Aid). Interchange fees should be decided with the free market. American merchants are going to whine about the costs of accepting credit cards no matter how low they get.

I'd like to see a market cap on credit card interest rates. I guess this really could go into the CARD Act, but could go here too. Rather than charging a 24.49% interest rate on a card, the bank should be required to deny the card to an applicant instead. Yes people should be using their credit cards more responsibly, but we know that will never happen. Cap credit card interest rates at 20% maximum while allowing credit unions to go from 17.99% to 20% to match the banks. Obviously because of ex post facto, current credit cards should not be affected... One would have to close out their current 21.49% card and re-apply to get a card that's terms are influenced by the new law at the same bank. I'd also like to see the regulation that gives a 6+ month requirement for a "promo introductory rate" go away, as one should be reading the terms of their card before applying and should know them, and also the elimination of regulations for fees on prepaid cards.

Additionally, I would propose the federal reserve to increase its insurance minimum to $500,000, up from $250,000, and revise the Expedited Funds Availability Act -- 9 business days for a check to clear for a new account? Don't think so... Funds should be available within 3 business days with the first $100 available the next day or earlier. People live paycheck to paycheck after all.
 
Last edited:
There needs to be a provision in any banking act to protect employees from their employers and their banks that charge the employee to cash a check at the employers business bank. This five dollar check cashing fee on the bank draft at the bank where it was drafted from is bs. An employee should never be required to open an account or pay a fee for cashing their paycheck from the employers bank. If the account and bank from whence the draft is made out it from, it should be cashed without charge at that bank where the account is.
 
That is the type of information I want to see on my threads, good stuff.
 
Another thing. These banks that hold onto non-existent mortgages to keep their books 'looking good'. We had a bank that used a put up mortgage scam on our house that never existed. They had sent out open ended lines of credit over ten years previously but that line was never used. The bank though made it look like they had a mortgage when in fact they never had one ever. The house had been paid for for well over thirty years and they did not have the original mortgage.
 
Erroneous 1099's. Got one of those from Citibank on a dozer that they repoed that wasn't behind on payments. They literally stole the damn thing and then sent out checks for the payments they had already cashed and deposited but the prosecutor wouldn't look at the paperwork for several years. When they did and saw the checks, etc...it was, "Oh' my god they stole it'." Yeah no shit. The 1099 was claiming the full amount of the lease/purchase even though they had sold the dozer and had received payments on that lease/purchase for well over a year. Neither the payments or the sale amount they received were deducted. They merely used the 1099 as an extra write-off claiming a loss when in fact they hadn't loss what they claimed. Wells Fargo did the same thing but much worse. They collected from SBA after lying their asses off- They had already admitted making up shitloads of erroneous settlement sheets, etc... (assholes belonged in jail)- They filed on personally owned property and stole a bunch of it- They attempted to use extortion tactics to force us into signing a non-disclosure and release of liability when they knew what they did was totally destroy two small business enterprises on purpose to cover their ceo's crooked asses and their fraudulent actions.

Best thing that Congress could do concerning SBA is put it all back under federal employees for some real small businesses could get some actual help. The bankers and such have just used it as their personal cash cow.
 
There should also be a mandatory release on anything they have no intentions of ever trying to collect. Wells Fargo put a mortgage on mutually owned real property that belongs to parties not on a corporate loan. They could never collect it without breaking the law some more and getting the court to do some more fraud for them but it keeps the title to property muddied unless the private owners spend a small fortune on attorneys. Ten years and clear it as they do it for nothing more than intentional aggravating and bullying and keeping their books cooked to make it look like they (the banks) are worth more than they actually are.

Houses used to sell houses on contract after they were readied to sell. My parents and grandparents sold property on contract. Much more personal that away as most private individuals are not heartless and just in it all for profits alone. More people had a chance to actually own their own house and property back then. I sold the first house I ever owned that away. The mortgagor was paid first and after a few years I received the profits in payments until the property was sold again and then I received the rest of my profits in a lump sum. The best way to actually own something is to buy within your means. The cities and states that have too much of a property tax burden for private ownership now will either have to straighten up their act or lose their over-inflated tax base altogether.
 
Being in the industry, I no longer even acquaint myself with proposed laws and regulations until they are actually in operation.

The latest reason for that is the DOL rule that was even passed, and was supposed to go into effect in April.

Well no, it didn't. But it did manage to cost us quite a bit in new administration, which we don't yet need or may never need. I still couldn't tell you all that much about it, since I was never convinced it was going into effect.

So yeah, get back to me when something is actually up and running.
.
 
It's ridiculous the amount of regulation there is in finance today. We were talking with an executive with JP Morgan, and she told us that the bank files 25,000 pages to regulatory bodies each month. They spend $8,000,000,000 a year on compliance. There is no way the regulators can read all that.

In the 20 years I've been in the business, the amount of paperwork has exploded. And we aren't a highly regulated entity.

It's ridiculous.
 
It's ridiculous the amount of regulation there is in finance today. We were talking with an executive with JP Morgan, and she told us that the bank files 25,000 pages to regulatory bodies each month. They spend $8,000,000,000 a year on compliance. There is no way the regulators can read all that.

In the 20 years I've been in the business, the amount of paperwork has exploded. And we aren't a highly regulated entity.

It's ridiculous.
Regulation and doing anything to protect the people who bank with them must be two different things because there was no one to stop them when they went after us with a vengeance. I doubt we will ever recover at this late of stage in our lives but I can say how corrupt it has became as the bankers decided they should have their mitts on every piece of any personal property out there whether people used their services or not. I still have every scrap of documentation to prove what lying thieving scumbags they are somewhere here. Even the five dollar receipts for them charging for cashing a check from an employer that was paying $6 an hour and the teller tried to claim that he couldn't even make me out a receipt. I told him look you little prick if you are going to charge me you damn well better give me a receipt for the charge. < that was Wells Fargo

As honest as some people may be not all are nor have they been in the big banking industry, they tie right back to the failed farms of the 70's and 80's. Many of those farmers were being screwed by the same assholes that caused the financial crash. Those crooked SOB's now own banks, farms, utility companies and more industry than they should have ever had a grip on. They got it through rook and crook and if Congress refuses to get it back to the people there will definitely be a war at some point.
 
Banks don't belong on Wall Street. That is depositors money in those banks not theirs.

They don't belong in insurance companies either as the depositor didn't put that money in the bank to have a select group of good ole boys to gamble with.
 
There hasn't been enough talk about the potential Dodd-Frank replacement.

Warning: Some of this stuff has more to do with other financial acts, but could be amended and added to Dodd-Frank in a shape or form.


"House Republican legislation meant to replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law is headed to the floor soon, the chairman responsible for the bill said Thursday.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told reporters that the panel is scheduled to vote on the sweeping legislative package Tuesday and the full House will vote on it "shortly thereafter."


- Washington Examiner Author: Lawler, Joseph (2017).

I don't like decreasing consumer protections, such as the CFPB (Consumer Finance Protection Bureau). I think many parts of the law should stay while many go the way of the dumpster. Not only will the middle class remain protected with certain protections like the CFPB remaining, but the Democrats may be able to agree with passing the law, or at least have a better chance of passing it in the Senate if it includes those middle-class protections.

I like the idea of the banks not being "insured" by the taxpayers, but the idea that the taxpayers' funds at those banks/credit unions are insured by the FDIC and/or the NCUA (if they have an account at both a bank and credit union) so we can let the banks fail rather than bail them out. I also want to see credit unions buying out mortgages and personal loans at failed community and "big banks" for people, and requiring membership for the people whose loan they bought out. When we see banks like Wells Fargo buying out loans from other financial institutions, it's not as favorable to the customer compared to what a credit union would be able to do for them. I think this proposal would help get democrats on board with a new law that would be drafted up to replace or "fix" Dodd-Frank. Credit unions also have a smaller chance of failing due to their business nature and it will increase the number of places failed big bank loans can be bought out from, and probably offer more favorable terms, too.

I'd like to see the Durbin Amendment go. I'm not sure how democrats feel about this (well except for idiot boy Durbin himself), but it hurts everyone involved in the banking business. It hurts the middle-class by taking away free checking options (at big banks and even many community banks), it takes away debit card rewards, it added debit routing fees at some credit unions, it's raised other fees, and it's effected some EMV programming at certain merchants because it's more difficult (see Rite Aid). Interchange fees should be decided with the free market. American merchants are going to whine about the costs of accepting credit cards no matter how low they get.

I'd like to see a market cap on credit card interest rates. I guess this really could go into the CARD Act, but could go here too. Rather than charging a 24.49% interest rate on a card, the bank should be required to deny the card to an applicant instead. Yes people should be using their credit cards more responsibly, but we know that will never happen. Cap credit card interest rates at 20% maximum while allowing credit unions to go from 17.99% to 20% to match the banks. Obviously because of ex post facto, current credit cards should not be affected... One would have to close out their current 21.49% card and re-apply to get a card that's terms are influenced by the new law at the same bank. I'd also like to see the regulation that gives a 6+ month requirement for a "promo introductory rate" go away, as one should be reading the terms of their card before applying and should know them, and also the elimination of regulations for fees on prepaid cards.

Additionally, I would propose the federal reserve to increase its insurance minimum to $500,000, up from $250,000, and revise the Expedited Funds Availability Act -- 9 business days for a check to clear for a new account? Don't think so... Funds should be available within 3 business days with the first $100 available the next day or earlier. People live paycheck to paycheck after all.

I like the idea of the banks not being "insured" by the taxpayers


They aren't.

When we see banks like Wells Fargo buying out loans from other financial institutions, it's not as favorable to the customer compared to what a credit union would be able to do for them.


If someone purchases a loan, there should be no change to the borrower.

Additionally, I would propose the federal reserve to increase its insurance minimum to $500,000,

The Federal Reserve doesn't insure deposits.
 
They aren't? What do you call a bailout then?

If a credit union purchases a loan, they have the right to raise or lower an interest rate if they want, as long as it's not over 18%.

I mean the treasury... Which is where the FDIC gets its money from basically.
 
It's ridiculous the amount of regulation there is in finance today. We were talking with an executive with JP Morgan, and she told us that the bank files 25,000 pages to regulatory bodies each month. They spend $8,000,000,000 a year on compliance. There is no way the regulators can read all that.

In the 20 years I've been in the business, the amount of paperwork has exploded. And we aren't a highly regulated entity.

It's ridiculous.

Are you sure you have that figure correct? 8 billion a year on compliance?
 
They aren't? What do you call a bailout then?

If a credit union purchases a loan, they have the right to raise or lower an interest rate if they want, as long as it's not over 18%.

I mean the treasury... Which is where the FDIC gets its money from basically.

They aren't?

Nope.

What do you call a bailout then?

An emergency measure during an extreme liquidity event.

If a credit union purchases a loan, they have the right to raise or lower an interest rate if they want, as long as it's not over 18%.

If a credit union purchases my fixed rate loan, they'd better not try to raise my rate.

I mean the treasury

The US Treasury doesn't insure deposits.

Which is where the FDIC gets its money from basically

Basically? LOL!
The FDIC gets its money from insured institutions.

FDIC: Current Calculator
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top