Why did the BUSH SEC hold back the broker rules?

[g5000]

I would also like to point out that the FSMA's breaking down of the barrier between banks and broker-dealers had no effect on Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley.

It mostly benefitted Citigroup.

 

[healthmyths]

Source: Press Release: SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers; 2007-190; Sept. 19, 2007

This removed a significant barrier which had been installed under Glass-Steagall.

Nope,

The banks could not be brokers BEFORE gramm leach blialy act.


Then that law allowed banks to act as brokers and also put in place BROKER rules for them.

Then for 8 long years the Bush SEC kept the broker rules for the banks from taking effect meaning they had no oversite in the government to police their broker activities.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brokers must have a series 7 license and series 63 to operate in the state they do buisness in. I'm a former trader, I know this. You had to get licensed way before Bush and way after Bush.

I had my Series 7 in 1969 through 1973!
I sold Fidelity Destiny front end contract funds!

Obviously you never learned anything as fundamental as "spelling"! NOT "oversite" dumb ****! "Oversight!"

And what you said for 8 long years????

YOU if you were a broker must KNOW that nothing happens in rule changes in the first 6 months of ANY administration!
So not 8 years dummy!
Then, YOU seem to forget this:
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 20022 (Sarbanes-Oxley) was an expansive reaction to widespread scandal and to the market’s perceived lack of corporate accountability.3
One of the strongest incentives contained in this Act is Section 304, which provides for the forfeiture of an entire year’s
bonuses and incentive compensation received by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), whenever corporate misconduct results in the filing of a restatement.
This provision puts the onus on the executives to go beyond passive observation and actively search out potential sources of fraud and misconduct by imposing on them a personal penalty for failure to discover misconduct.
It also creates one of the strongest incentives to accomplish the direct goal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Legislation—corporate transparency and disclosure.

 

[TNHarley]

Jesus Christ im glad I didn't get into financing lol
The mentioning of Glass-Steagall gave me something to look into. Which opened the door (I need to go further deep in historical politics)
In the 30's, Glass-Steagall came into play. Because "Government is the answer" and what-not
Then they come up with the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act
Then fuckers like Robert Rubin(Clinton administration) stay on his(Clinton) back saying it would be good for capitol gains and Wall Street.
You have douchebag republicans in Congress comes in and slips some BS pork into it the GLBA
(Totally support legislation with a "size" limit. If it is longer it should be broken up. ACA
Clinton signs it starting this BS!
Oh and lets not forget Carter and his 95th Congress with the Housing crisis BS
Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those liberal pieces of shit wanted to take it easy on the "poor" community.
Which started the Fannie Mae blah blah blah
So basically, TM you are a fuckin idiot, proved, as usual
It don't matter if Bush held shit back or not. Your question is irrelevant. CLinton fucked us in 99. Rubin made him his ***** and fucked the country for GREED. The Repubs had to get their share too. Then the dems not listening to bush to fulfill the Carter prophecy of giving homes away to people who cant fuckin afford it.
Little research TM. It took me, what, 45 minutes? (besides my drive home getting the kid etc) I was like 15 during this. You were not. YOu lived it and let the democrat spin and koolaid **** your life up. Maybe that's why you are a drunk?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

This is what we are talking about.


Go get WHY it was done.


just saying I dont know is not an answer is it

Source: Press Release: SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers; 2007-190; Sept. 19, 2007

This removed a significant barrier which had been installed under Glass-Steagall.

Nope,

The banks could not be brokers BEFORE gramm leach blialy act.


Then that law allowed banks to act as brokers and also put in place BROKER rules for them.

Then for 8 long years the Bush SEC kept the broker rules for the banks from taking effect meaning they had no oversite in the government to police their broker activities.

Before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, banks couldn't write bad mortgages?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has been a while since I read the FSMA and the CFMA. However, the FSMA (a.k.a. GLB) was given a kick in the ass toward passage when Citicorp merged with Travelers Group. This totally violated Glass-Steagall. And, as usual in modern times, the government did nothing about it. In fact, the government decided to accomodate this totally illegal merger by making it legal with the FSMA in 1999.

To say the broker-dealers were able to operate without any rules for eight years after that point is incorrect. The broker-dealers already existed, and were already regulated. The rules that had to be written were those which said who was allowed to be a broker dealer. The existing rules for broker-dealers were not eliminated by the FSMA.

I did post a unanimous SEC ruling made in 2004 which did waive net reserve requirements for the five biggest broker-dealers at the beginning of this topic. And that one ruling cost us way more than what Fannie and Freddie did. But that's another subject. I thought that was what this topic was going to be about.

Anyway...

Since the old rules forbade certain entities from offering broker dealer services, the FSMA said that some entities which had been forbidden would now be allowed. It took eight years to nail down who was allowed to be a broker dealer. It did not mean those broker dealers out there who were up and running were running unregulated.

But TruthyMcStupid has been whining about that topic for years.
She's been wrong the entire time?
Priceless!

 

[Truthmatters]

It has been a while since I read the FSMA and the CFMA. However, the FSMA (a.k.a. GLB) was given a kick in the ass toward passage when Citicorp merged with Travelers Group. This totally violated Glass-Steagall. And, as usual in modern times, the government did nothing about it. In fact, the government decided to accomodate this totally illegal merger by making it legal with the FSMA in 1999.

To say the broker-dealers were able to operate without any rules for eight years after that point is incorrect. The broker-dealers already existed, and were already regulated. The rules that had to be written were those which said who was allowed to be a broker dealer. The existing rules for broker-dealers were not eliminated by the FSMA.

I did post a unanimous SEC ruling made in 2004 which did waive net reserve requirements for the five biggest broker-dealers at the beginning of this topic. And that one ruling cost us way more than what Fannie and Freddie did. But that's another subject. I thought that was what this topic was going to be about.

Anyway...

Since the old rules forbade certain entities from offering broker dealer services, the FSMA said that some entities which had been forbidden would now be allowed. It took eight years to nail down who was allowed to be a broker dealer. It did not mean those broker dealers out there who were up and running were running unregulated.

that is all your words with NO proof that what your are saying is FACT.


Now since I dont take the words of some internets GUY as fact please provide for me any PROOF you have that what you say is indeed fact!

 

[Truthmatters]

It has been a while since I read the FSMA and the CFMA. However, the FSMA (a.k.a. GLB) was given a kick in the ass toward passage when Citicorp merged with Travelers Group. This totally violated Glass-Steagall. And, as usual in modern times, the government did nothing about it. In fact, the government decided to accomodate this totally illegal merger by making it legal with the FSMA in 1999.

To say the broker-dealers were able to operate without any rules for eight years after that point is incorrect. The broker-dealers already existed, and were already regulated. The rules that had to be written were those which said who was allowed to be a broker dealer. The existing rules for broker-dealers were not eliminated by the FSMA.

I did post a unanimous SEC ruling made in 2004 which did waive net reserve requirements for the five biggest broker-dealers at the beginning of this topic. And that one ruling cost us way more than what Fannie and Freddie did. But that's another subject. I thought that was what this topic was going to be about.

Anyway...

Since the old rules forbade certain entities from offering broker dealer services, the FSMA said that some entities which had been forbidden would now be allowed. It took eight years to nail down who was allowed to be a broker dealer. It did not mean those broker dealers out there who were up and running were running unregulated.

But TruthyMcStupid has been whining about that topic for years.
She's been wrong the entire time?
Priceless!

apparently some dimwitts do think internets guys are proof.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go get PROOF the broker rules were as you say they were and NOT as the SEC release says.

lets remember what the realease says MMMMkay

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue a second




Now remember Banks could not sell as brokers BEFORE GLBact.

Oh yeah and Pretending that there was NO new brokers that the banks hired and trained themselves is not honest is it.

 

[Truthmatters]

Heres a Tip.

If bank brokers had rules in those eight years you should be able to find some prosicutions of said brokers breaking the LAWS of their licenses huh?


Go get a case

 

[Truthmatters]

Jesus Christ im glad I didn't get into financing lol
The mentioning of Glass-Steagall gave me something to look into. Which opened the door (I need to go further deep in historical politics)
In the 30's, Glass-Steagall came into play. Because "Government is the answer" and what-not
Then they come up with the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act
Then fuckers like Robert Rubin(Clinton administration) stay on his(Clinton) back saying it would be good for capitol gains and Wall Street.
You have douchebag republicans in Congress comes in and slips some BS pork into it the GLBA
(Totally support legislation with a "size" limit. If it is longer it should be broken up. ACA
Clinton signs it starting this BS!
Oh and lets not forget Carter and his 95th Congress with the Housing crisis BS
Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those liberal pieces of shit wanted to take it easy on the "poor" community.
Which started the Fannie Mae blah blah blah
So basically, TM you are a fuckin idiot, proved, as usual
It don't matter if Bush held shit back or not. Your question is irrelevant. CLinton fucked us in 99. Rubin made him his ***** and fucked the country for GREED. The Repubs had to get their share too. Then the dems not listening to bush to fulfill the Carter prophecy of giving homes away to people who cant fuckin afford it.
Little research TM. It took me, what, 45 minutes? (besides my drive home getting the kid etc) I was like 15 during this. You were not. YOu lived it and let the democrat spin and koolaid **** your life up. Maybe that's why you are a drunk?

dear idiot,


tell me why the banks NOT involved in CRA made bank off of subprime?

 

[TNHarley]

Stop repeating the same shit over and over please
I do agree that there was new brokers. Banks knew what they were doing
No comment to my post?

 

[Truthmatters]

Not one con has ever answered WHY the Bush SEC held back these broker rules for 8 long years.

Im still waiting

 

[Truthmatters]

Stop repeating the same shit over and over please
I do agree that there was new brokers. Banks knew what they were doing
No comment to my post?

Go away you have nothing to offer here unless you can PROVE what you say with evidence

 

[TNHarley]

Oh so another question?
You are a retard to argue with. You do know that, right?
I honestly dont feel the need to answer the question. This whole thing started from you saying something about cons ruining the economy. Well the answer is on page 3, Check it out
Now, about the abortion thing...

 

[TNHarley]

What the **** does it matter?
CLinton fucked us from the get go.
With the help of Rubin.
WTF does it matter?
BS should have never been started in the first place

 

[Truthmatters]

You have NO answer of WHY the Bush SEC held back ther bank broker rules in GLBact for 8 long years.


now what is the title of the thread?

 

[Truthmatters]

go start your own thread if you cant answer this one

 

[Truthmatters]

Note all this bluster and still not one answer to the long ignored question

 

[jknowgood]

You dont understand anything about what happened to this country under Bush you fool harley.

That is the point.

dont pretend you understand what caused this mess if you cant answer this question

Still bush? I'm more worried about whats happenimg under obama.