Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Underestimating the Horrors of Dodd-Frank (Banks have hundreds of lawyers working just to comply)
IBD via RealClearMarkets ^ | 01/25/2012

Posted on 01/25/2012 7:04:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Regulation: Tuesday's GOP debate moderator was shocked by the front-runners' broadside against Dodd-Frank banking rules. He seemed to think they were hyping their damage. They weren't.

The media elite are under the assumption that all government regulations are good. So when both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich took shots at Dodd-Frank, NBC News anchor Brian Williams was flabbergasted. He expressed skepticism that its new rules posed any problem.

Gingrich straightened him out, arguing the media and the public don't know how "bad" the Democrats' law is.

"If you could repeal Dodd-Frank tomorrow morning, you would see the economy start to improve overnight," Gingrich asserted. "It is crushing independent banks" by clamping down on lending for both housing and small businesses.

Indeed, the American Bankers Association predicts the law will shutter 1,000 banks by 2020.

"The Dodd-Frank Act and the related burdens are threatening not just our industry but our very banks," outgoing ABA chair Stephen Wilson last year wrote to FDIC chief Sheila Bair. "The most conservative estimates that we have seen predict that by the end of the decade there will be 1,000 fewer banks in the United States than there are today."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doddfrank

1 posted on 01/25/2012 7:04:13 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; abb; CutePuppy; ken5050; TADSLOS
Isn't it "nice" that Hollywweirdos "rewarded" Dodd for foisting this mind-numbing banking debacle on US citizens?

Hollyweird gave conniver Dodd a nice fat job looking after their interests.

Course Dodd also has a lot of stories to tell about sex play on The Hill----fodder for movie-making.


Dodd even knows where all the money is to finance Hollyweird's trashy output.

FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS Behind The Real Size of the Bailout; A guide to the abbreviations, acronyms, and obscure programs that make up the $14 trillion federal bailout of Wall Street
Mon Dec. 21, 2009 12:23 PM PST

The price tag for the Wall Street bailout is often put at $700 billion—the size of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. But TARP is just the best known program in an array of more than 30 overseen by Treasury Department and Federal Reserve that have paid out or put aside money to bail out financial firms and inject money into the markets.

To get a sense of the size of the real $14 trillion bailout, see our chart at web site. Below, a guide to the pieces of the puzzle:

Treasury Department bailout programs
(Remember that Obama's Treasury Dept was controlled by his then-COS Rahm Emanuel---a G/S lobbyist in the WH)

Money Market Mutual Fund: In September 2008, the Treasury announced that it would insure the holdings of publicly offered money market mutual funds. According to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), these guarantees could have potentially cost the federal government more than $3 trillion [PDF].

Public-Private Investment Fund: This joint Treasury-Federal Reserve program bought toxic assets from banks and brokerages—as much as $5 billion of assets per firm. According to SIGTARP, the government's potential exposure from the PPIF is between $500 million and $1 trillion [PDF].

TARP: As part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury has made loans to or investments more than 750 banks and financial institutions. $650 billion has been paid out (not including HAMP; see below). As of December 21, 2009, $117.5 billion of that has been repaid.

Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) stock purchase: The Treasury has bought $200 million in preferred stock from Fannie Mae and another $200 million from Freddie Mac [PDF] to show that they "will remain viable entities critical to the functioning of the housing and mortgage markets."

GSE mortgage-backed securities purchase: Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the Treasury may buy mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to SIGTARP, these purchases could cost as much as $314 billion ---SNIP---.

LONG READ---go to web site to read more and checkout the shocking financial charts.


2 posted on 01/25/2012 7:14:10 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Is it not true that many National Banks are now converting to State Chartered Banks to avoid the strictures of Dodd-Frank?

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The costs to comply with these massive regulatory bills are unimaginable -- and beyond the ability of small businesses. The very large corporation I used to work for hired an entire floor of accountants, lawyers and engineers just to comply with FDA changes the Clinton administration proposed in the late nineties.

Then Bush was elected, the regs were rescinded, and the floor was empty once again. After having spent millions for nothing.

4 posted on 01/25/2012 7:21:07 AM PST by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donozark

Unfortunately it doesn’t matter if you are national or state chartered. Dodd-Frank applies regardless.

5 posted on 01/25/2012 7:23:36 AM PST by VegasCowboy ("...he wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Repeal Dodd-Frank first, Sarbanes-Oxley second.

6 posted on 01/25/2012 7:25:49 AM PST by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VegasCowboy

Well, was it Sarbanes-Oxley? Or some other legislation (or reason?) why these banks are converting?

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Banks have hundreds of lawyers working just to comply"

This is considered job creation in the Obama administration.

8 posted on 01/25/2012 7:29:51 AM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Chris Dodd SOPA

...Dodd has come under intense criticism for his role at the MPAA in the SOPA debate. He is not allowed to directly lobby in Congress, so he has acted as a coordinator of the association's activities in Washington, which were focused for the last several months in large part on passing the SOPA bill.

9 posted on 01/25/2012 7:32:45 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Its prolly pretty safe to assume that most any legislation emanating fom Capitol hill presently is a “make-work” bill for attorneys.

Fashioning the chains of honest men has become a full time federal project...rather than just simply applying the law to the few crooks and locking them up.

10 posted on 01/25/2012 7:38:09 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; mickie
If the banks have hundreds of lawyers just "working to comply", why don't they have thousands of voices rising up to expose the regulations that are putting them out of business?

Why don't they have spokesmen on TV business shows and on Hannity and Greta exposing Obama, his commie/fascist czars, his evil mentor, Axelrod, his corrupt administration....and screaming to high heaven to the media and to the public how he's destroying a whole industry (banking)????

How can you have sympathy for a beleaguered business entity that appears not to have the guts, the will and the know-how to fight back?????


11 posted on 01/25/2012 7:39:17 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
ZINGER Newt's debate response when asked about SOPA.....

When King tried to nail him on the anti-pirating SOPA. Newt parried with: "You're asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood?

12 posted on 01/25/2012 7:43:26 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

The MSM and Washington politicians have been demonizing banks for years and years. The reputations of community banks has been soiled along with the mega-banks. The banks can no longer muster a swell of public opinion to compel Washington to act on their behalf.

The public is already suffering since credit has already been restricted because of the “do-gooder” ostensible intent of the onerous regulations. It will get far, far worse for small town businesses and consumers as more and more community banks sell out or close their doors because compliance costs and government created compliance risk make the risks and costs incurred too great for the paltry profit potential that the over-regulation has left them. And we are at that point BEFORE the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets going good. It will be a blood bath on businesses and banks when this stuff really takes hold.

13 posted on 01/25/2012 9:00:24 AM PST by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper; mickie
...and yet the banks all over the fruited plain are taking their own demise laying down.


14 posted on 01/25/2012 9:08:08 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

You didn’t read what I said. Part of the problem is that the Democrats are conspiring with the big banks to create consolidation in the industry. Big banks can hire the lawyers and staff to deal with the increased regulation. As the smaller banks fall by the wayside, the big banks are left, which can continue to feed Washington cash for their protected franchise. It also affords politicians more control over the industry. And when you control credit, you control commerce and the heart of a free-market society. By nature it is an anti-capitalist move.

No the Independent Community Banks of America (ICBA) has been fighting very hard against these regulations. The MSM ignores it because the banking industry, according to their script, has long been tarnished. ICBA fights, but the public doesn’t hear about it, at least until Gingrich raised the issue. What has happened is that credit unions have far more sway with congress because they are not divided among the large bank- small bank factions AND they serve the union members. Credit unions do not pay federal income taxes as banks do.

So, as I alluded to before, the deck is stacked against the community banks, but they are fighting hard. You just don’t hear anything about it.

15 posted on 01/25/2012 9:35:02 AM PST by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson