Economy

Rant

A Quick Look at the Financial Regulation Bill

Posted 22 months ago|5 comments|1,124 views
Written by
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
To start, it should be made very clear that this article does not support any political ideology in judgment of the financial regulation bill that was signed into law today. My view point is from a long term investment manager stance that really wants to see some of the risk created by large financial firms removed from the market.

This bill does absolutely nothing to remove the threat of over-the-counter securities from the market and any statement by President Obama that claims this bill can protect the market from what caused the last crash is false. There are three basic reasons this bill will not protect the economy.

First, the hyped Volcker Rule to forbid large financial firms from leveraging assets in risky trades was watered down so banks can leave risky assets off of the book as long as those assets are no more than five percent of total bank assets. The weak wording is a basic defeat for the equity markets and a victory for large financial firms on Wall Street. They will be able to suck equity out of the markets until the next crisis.

The second reason this financial regulation bill fails is that there is absolutely no mention of the nationalized government banks of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government back banks own 50 percent of all home mortgages. Let me state that again so the full magnitude of the size sinks in, 50 percent of all home mortgages are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs took their bundled mortgages to Fannie and Freddie who in turn for a fee, made those bundled mortgages into government backed securities. With a government guarantee that if those mortgages defaulted the federal government would pay the banks, Goldman and other firms were able to earn a top credit rating from government endorsed rating agencies (for a large fee of course). These mortgage backed securities had the best credit rating possible even though most were junk subprime loans given to people who could not afford the loan when rates increased. Fannie and Freddie allowed the government tax dollars to get caught up in a ponzi scheme and helped accelerate the housing bubble. The fact there is nothing addressing these two banks really means the government is still guarantee the loans irresponsible firms like Goldman make.

Lastly, for every new organization that the financial regulation bill creates there is already a department or organization in existence. We don't need more organizations or more consumer protection; we need more enforcement from existing organizations.

This country is still very much at risk of having another credit crunch caused by irresponsible investment firms in Washington. Washington and banking CEO's are all trying to protect each other and the economy suffers from that partnership.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
22 months ago: These companies get rid of a mortgage note fast and resell it many times, because they are not any longer the "holder in due course".

By not having the original wet ink signed mortgage note, they only have a counterfeit security.

Any reproduction, copy, certified copy, electronic copy would be a violation of Title 18 USC 471, 472 and 474, and would therefore be fraud and are in fact counterfeit securities.

Once you sign for your note, they resell it and get paid over and over again.

Did you know that when they do this to you, they were supposed to send you a clear title?

Your home was PAID OFF!!!

If you don't know this. Then you are not aware of the scam of the mortgage industry.

You actually prepaid your home in advance, and they keep on billing you for 30 years after being paid up to 20 times.

Every sovereign know this, we file against them to recover the title and take them for ten times the value of your home.

We sovereigns play tough and get even for these frauds.

I tell it like it is, I pull no punches, tell no lies, and I am as I am

THE ONE AND ONLY RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Find the clue of who I am in this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hl...#!


Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
22 months ago: You are correct Colorado that the bill was severely watered down. The lobbyists for the banks and financial institutions spent hundreds of times more than the lobbyists against the Health Care Bill, so there are a lot of loopholes, like for the Auto lenders. Still there is a lot of consumer protection in the bill so it is much much better than having no bill at all. http://www.cleveland.com/consumeraffairs...

The head of the agency should be Warren because she has a history of fighting for the consumer.

Goldman should have been fined much more than the $550 million for it's misdeeds but on the other hand this is more than anyone else has ever been fined for. http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/16072...

I read that Congress will address Freddie and Franny in separate legislation.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
22 months ago: Personally, i thought we needed new rules and I was in favor of a bill that increased enforcement and really made sure that all these over the counter products were placed on an open market.

But those damn lobbyist really watered the bill down. You are very correct.

In hind sight ( which is 20/20) the government should have used fannie and freddi to give out loans to keep the credit markets moving and let those greedy and stupid banks eat their mistakes and fail.

I hope your right about freddi and franny in the future are going to be reformed. maybe lobbyist wont care about government banks and not water down the bill.

I was also a strong supporter of health care reform but was disappointed with the final product and that is no fault of Obama. just like fin reg because capitalism needs a good bill.

Thanks for the comment and links.
TJFirsty
TJFirsty
Concord, MA
22 months ago: Each of these decisions will have big impact on the November elections. How do you think Obama's approval rating will impact the elections:
http://www.votos.com/poll/1127_Do_you_ap...
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
22 months ago: Obama will probably do better in 2012 if the right wing wins big in 2010. Once they get in they will have to perform and they have no new ideas, just obstructionism and going back to Bush's failed policies.

There will be hard times ahead and Obama will be able to blame inaction on the recalcitrant Republicans.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.