The Financial Reform Bill - Good or Bad?

[Ava]

Given the spate of bureaucracy completely unrelated swill crammed into the "health care" deform bill, I'm suspicious at the very least.

If this bill follows true-to-form of the past several bloated power legislative grabs of the Bolshevist democrat empire, which I have no reason at all to believe otherwise, I'm against it on general principles.

While it seems to need reform, I can't trust this prez. to even touch it.

 

[Toro]

Its good.

The bill will make derivatives more transparent and less risky by forcing traders to put up collateral on a daily basis.

The $50 billion fund will ensure that the next time there is a big collapse - and there will be - then the banks will take the first $50 billion hit instead of the taxpayers. Without this fund, taxpayers will be on the hook for everything. Best that the banks at least have some of their own money at risk rather than relying solely on the taxpayers.

That's just plain old economically ignorant.

Where do you think the banks are going to come up with the money to pay into that big (what will end up being) slush fund?

Dude, you're clueless.

Wall Street is fighting this tooth and nail. If they could pass it on, why do you think they are lobbying so hard against it? If you could pass on your costs, you wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars fighting it.

Its interesting that you think self-insurance is a slush fund.

 

[Toro]

Oh, they'll be willing as long as you're willing to pay the points, fees and interest.

so, less inclined to part with it. alone the same lines, I suppose. It's just the banks are already hoarding money.

Considering that the dollar is nearly worthless I can understand why. On the other hand I have received no less than 8 credit card offers and offers from Banks to lend me money this week alone.

Credit is loosening up.

I was reading a piece this evening from the Bank Credit Analyst that financial profits are near their pre-crisis high. That's astonishing.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Financial Reform Bill - Good or Bad?

Bad. More government control. Damn socialists.

 

[elvis]

Oh, they'll be willing as long as you're willing to pay the points, fees and interest.

so, less inclined to part with it. alone the same lines, I suppose. It's just the banks are already hoarding money.

Considering that the dollar is nearly worthless I can understand why. On the other hand I have received no less than 8 credit card offers and offers from Banks to lend me money this week alone.

well that goes along with dude's theory about high interest. I was thinking on the lines of commercial loans and mortgages.

 

[boedicca]

As long as the 50 billion dollar perpetual bailout fund is eliminated...it would be something I could support.

Not me.

It includes provisions that allow the government to take over any firm it deems too big to fail, and to seize assets without due process in order "repay the government" for any funds received from the government.

It will not prevent bail outs.

 

[boedicca]

They're not hoarding it at all. They're investing it in less risky paper than mortgages and commercial credit.

The banks that receive TARP money invested a great deal of it in Treasuries. The Feds loaned them taxpayer money for virtually 0% interest - and then the Feds borrowed it back at 3.5%+ to expand government.

It's a con.

 

[Oddball]

Its good.

The bill will make derivatives more transparent and less risky by forcing traders to put up collateral on a daily basis.

The $50 billion fund will ensure that the next time there is a big collapse - and there will be - then the banks will take the first $50 billion hit instead of the taxpayers. Without this fund, taxpayers will be on the hook for everything. Best that the banks at least have some of their own money at risk rather than relying solely on the taxpayers.

That's just plain old economically ignorant.

Where do you think the banks are going to come up with the money to pay into that big (what will end up being) slush fund?

Dude, you're clueless.

Wall Street is fighting this tooth and nail. If they could pass it on, why do you think they are lobbying so hard against it? If you could pass on your costs, you wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars fighting it.

Its interesting that you think self-insurance is a slush fund.

I'm not clueless at all...In the pro rasslin' world, they call it "selling the move".

The big operators are all for this, as it puts more of a burden on their competitors (see: the FDA).

 

[boedicca]

Dude, you're clueless.

Wall Street is fighting this tooth and nail. If they could pass it on, why do you think they are lobbying so hard against it? If you could pass on your costs, you wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars fighting it.

Its interesting that you think self-insurance is a slush fund.

Uh. No. Goldman actually supports these reforms because they hurt its competition and provide yet more socialized risk and privatized profit for them.

The nation's largest investment bank, famously cozy with top government officials in both parties, has tipped its hand to its shareholders, indicating that major financial "reform" proposals will help Goldman's bottom line.

"Given that much of the financial contagion was fueled by uncertainty about counterparties' balance sheets," Goldman Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn wrote in a letter at the beginning of the annual report, "we support measures that would require higher capital and liquidity levels, as well as the use of clearinghouses for standardized derivative transactions."

Goldman's executives are calling for two regulations here. First, they want the federal government to restrict free-wheeling, heavily leveraged, high-stakes financial risk taking. Second, they want government to set more rules of the road for trading derivatives -- financial products that are often complex...

Timothy P. Carney: Goldman rallies for Obama in Wall Street 'reform' | Washington Examiner

 

[Oddball]

Dude, you're clueless.

Wall Street is fighting this tooth and nail. If they could pass it on, why do you think they are lobbying so hard against it? If you could pass on your costs, you wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars fighting it.

Its interesting that you think self-insurance is a slush fund.

Uh. No. Goldman actually supports these reforms because they hurt its competition and provide yet more socialized risk and privatized profit for them.

The nation's largest investment bank, famously cozy with top government officials in both parties, has tipped its hand to its shareholders, indicating that major financial "reform" proposals will help Goldman's bottom line.

"Given that much of the financial contagion was fueled by uncertainty about counterparties' balance sheets," Goldman Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn wrote in a letter at the beginning of the annual report, "we support measures that would require higher capital and liquidity levels, as well as the use of clearinghouses for standardized derivative transactions."

Goldman's executives are calling for two regulations here. First, they want the federal government to restrict free-wheeling, heavily leveraged, high-stakes financial risk taking. Second, they want government to set more rules of the road for trading derivatives -- financial products that are often complex...

Timothy P. Carney: Goldman rallies for Obama in Wall Street 'reform' | Washington Examiner

Because it bears repeating:

 

[kyzr]

Financial reform would be good. My wish list eliminates derivatives, options and short-sales. Only capital & job growing capital creation is allowed. The casinos are shut down. Investments must be held at least 90-days (no day trading) get a real job and grow the economy.

Also, no more "capturing" of government agencies allowed. How can guys like Madoff be considered for the head of the SEC, and Goldman Sachs guys taking over Treasury? Hirings need to consider which company they hire from, and no more than 1 government manager from any one company.

 

[Flopper]

The 50 billion fund will probably not make it. It doesn't sound like Obama really supports and there isn't that much support for it Congress.

 

[Toro]

The big operators are all for this, as it puts more of a burden on their competitors (see: the FDA).

I'm talking to these firms. They aren't for this no matter what they say in public.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, not buying this bill of goods.

 

[Flopper]

the discount window?

HA!

Count on every fee and interest rate for you going up, buddy.

so you think it will make banks even less willing to lend?

My understanding is the $50 billion fund would be used if all other provisions of the bill fail. It is funded by the industry, however considering the financial size of this industry, it shouldn't be a big impact, particularly if it can be include as a part of required reserves. Remember the purpose of the fund is not to bail out the financial institution but to provide immediate funds to keep the doors open while the business is being wound down. There are other alternatives but they would require government funds.

 

[Flopper]

This bill isn't going to have much impact on community banks, credit unions, and those banks that just do traditional banking. The bill is aimed at the mega financial institutions like Citibank, Bank of America, and AIG. These institutions are involved in just about every kind of financial service throughout the world. I think these guys will just move their derivative trading and other questionable practices offshore to escape regulation. If other countries don't follow the US lead, I question just how effective this legislation will be.

 

[Flopper]

Financial reform would be good. My wish list eliminates derivatives, options and short-sales. Only capital & job growing capital creation is allowed. The casinos are shut down. Investments must be held at least 90-days (no day trading) get a real job and grow the economy.

Also, no more "capturing" of government agencies allowed. How can guys like Madoff be considered for the head of the SEC, and Goldman Sachs guys taking over Treasury? Hirings need to consider which company they hire from, and no more than 1 government manager from any one company.

Trading of some types of derivatives needs to stop, particularly those that derive their value from mortgage backed bonds which are backed by packages of individual mortgages.

I believe options and futures trading are beneficial to the economy. When used properly options are very useful in reducing risk in an investment portfolio. Commodity futures allow businesses to get a guaranteed price for agricultural products and raw materials needed to produce their products. They also allow the farmer to control his risk.

 

[boedicca]

Wrong. Derivates just need to be standardized and traded on an exchange, like futures.

 

[JBeukema]

As long as the 50 billion dollar perpetual bailout fund is eliminated...it would be something I could support.

The money the banks are forced to set aside for liquidation?

 

[Modbert]

I love how gambling has been cleaned up by calling it investing.

If I ever hold a poker game in my state, I'll call it "investing" instead of gambling and see what the cops say.