Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The "Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act, is a piece of financial reform legislation passed in 2010, shortly after the housing crisis, by the Obama administration. It is named after key sponsors Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank. This act served as a response to the financial crisis of 2008. Its intention was to decrease the risks in the U.S. financial system. This act helped establish numerous government agencies, who are given the task of overseeing and regulating different aspects of the banking system. It is important to note, the Trump administration is working to repeal the act, as of June 8th. Recently, the Republican controlled U.S. House of representatives have voted to repeal and replace it with the Financial CHOICE act, which plans on …show more content…
cutting back some key pieces of Dodd-Frank. However, it is unlikely to pass the U.S. senate, as is. The keys agencies in the Dodd- Frank Act are as follows, “The Financial Stability Oversight council” and “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” The former is tasked with monitoring the financial stability of large institutions, institutions informally referred to “Too big to fail”, who’s possible failure could result in devastating results in the overall economy, as we saw in 2008.
It is also tasked with providing restricting or possibly liquidations, delivered by the Orderly Liquidation Fund, which provides capital to aid in the closing of financial intuitions that have either been placed in receivership, in addition to preventing another government bailout via tax dollars. Banks that are considered “Too big to fail”, can be broken up under the authority of the council. These are banks who may pose incredible systematic risk (risk in the economy). In addition, the council may require banks to increase their reserve requirements. In addition, we have the CFPB, which is tasked with preventing predatory mortgage lending, this is believed to reflect that belief that the subprime mortgage lending was the key cause in the 2008 crisis. Furthermore, it no longer allows for mortgage brokers to earn increased commissions for closing loans with higher interest rates or fees. Eliminating the incentive of predatory mortgage
lending. There are many compenents to the Dodd Frank act, however the most important one is the Volcker Rule, which regulates and restricts the manner in which banks can invest. Attempting to limit or eliminate high risk speculative trading. Basically, separating the investment and commercial functions of a bank. Banks are also no longer able to be involved with private equity firms or hedge funds. This is almost like a glass-Steagall Act-light if you will. Which was passed in 1933, legislation that was arguably the first to recognize the dangers of financial institutions being heavily engaged in commercial and investment banking concurrently. The act also contains provisions that regulate derivates, such as CDS, which are believed to have played a vital role in the 2008 crisis. Primarily because of their exotic nature and the fact that they were traded over the counter, many were unaware of their size and the risk they imposed. For example, not only were people trading credit default swaps on mortgage backed securities, but eventually people were trading CDS’s on other CDS. Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act, established the SEC Office of Credit ratings. This is again clearly because of the widespread belief that credit ratings agencies such as Standard & Poor, Fitch, and/or Moody’s were rating bad bonds as investment grades ones. This office is required to ensure that these agencies are being as accurate, reliable, and meaningful as possible in their ratings of corporate, businesses, municipalities, governments, etc. that they evaluate.
Consequently, the provisions to separate commercial banking from securities and investment firms were regarded as a way to diminish the risk associated with providing such deposit insurance. Although some historians argue that the depression itself is what caused the collapse of the banking system, in 1933 the general consensus was that banks had provoked the failure by engaging in shady and abusive practices with depositor’s money. Congressional hearings conducted in early 1933 seemed to indicate that bankers and brokers were guilty of “disreputable and seemingly dishonest dealings, and gross misuses of the public's trust” (“Understanding How”, 1998). The Glass Steagall act was the main legislative response of President Roosevelt’s administration to the unprecedented financial turmoil that was facing the nation in the middle of a deep depression. It was intended to regulate and stabilize the banking industry, reduce risk, and provide consumers with confidence in the financial
This bank held government money and controlled the economy by making it easier for local banks to borrow money from it to loan it to manufacturers and factories. As the idea arose the cabinet, Jefferson protested that such a bank was unconstitutional because it favored the north over the south since the bank did not loan money to farmers for land expansions. Being true as it is, the bank drastically boosted our economy and had a great future for our nation. Since it was unconstitutional, a compromise said that the bank would only be funded for 20 years. So as soon as Andrew Jackson was elected, he destroyed the bank. In response to this, our nation suddenly falls into a major depression. No one had jobs and the economy was dying. This showed the brilliance of the national bank and how much it helped our economy. Adding onto this, the bank began the formation of the Federalist and Democratic
First, Andrew Jackson, aimed towards all of the strict constructionists, brought up the point that the formation of a national bank is not in the Constitution, and therefore there is no reason why we should be able to use it. President Jackson also said how the national bank is “rebellious of the rights of the states, and dangerous to the liberties of the people”. Jackson could see that the bank was a monopoly, and the danger that this could bring. He said how the bank is run primarily by 25 people, 20 of which are elected by the bank stock holders, the other five are elected by the bank officials themselves, who in the long run can keep reelecting themselves, and corruption is bound to follow.
In 1913, Wilson and Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act to make a decentralized national bank containing twelve local offices. By and large, all the private banks in every district possessed and worked that separate area's branch. In any case, the new Federal Reserve Board had the last say in choices influencing all branches, including setting financing costs and issuing money. This new managing an account framework settled national funds and credit and helped the monetary framework survive two world wars and the Great
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the reform that followed the Great Depression. It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation’s financial services industry. Like Glass-Steagall, the legislation passed after the Great Depression, it sought to regulate the financial markets and make another economic crisis less likely. Banks were deregulated in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act and essentially allowed for the excessive risk taken on by banks that caused the most recent financial crisis. The Financial Stability Oversight Council was established through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and was created to address the systemic risks in the United States financial system and to improve coordination among financial regulators.
“Too big to fail” is a theory that suggests some financial institutions are so large and so powerful that their failure would be disastrous to the local and global economy, and therefore must be assisted by the government when struggles arise. Supporters of this idea argue that there are some institutions are so important that they should be the recipients of beneficial financial and economic policies from government. On the other hand, opponents express that one of the main problems that may arise is moral hazard, where a firm that receives gains from these advantageous policies will seek to profit by it, purposely taking positions that are high-risk high-return, because they are able to leverage these risks based on their given policy. Critics see the theory as counter-productive, and that banks and financial institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective. Is continually bailing out these institutions considered ethical? There are many facets that must be tak...
Mortgage loans are a substantial form of revenue for the financial industry. Mortgage loans generate billions of dollars in the financial industry. It is no secret that companies have the ability to make a lot of money by offering a variety of mortgage loan products. The problem was not mortgage loans but that mortgage companies were using unethical behavior to get consumer mortgage loans approved. Unfortunately, the Countrywide Financial case was not an isolated case. Many top name mortgage companies have been guilty of unethical behavior. Just as the American housing market was starting to recover from its worst battering since the Great Depression, a new scandal, an epidemic of flawed or fraudulent mortgage documents, threatens to send not just the housing market but the entire economy back into a tailspin (Nation, 2010).
Globally, banks have been facing big challenges in the last few years and continue to do so. As a result of the financial crisis, the regulators have tightened the minimum capital requirements with the aims to create a more solid and shock-resistant banking system especially for the so called Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs). The Financial Stability Board is expecting to raise the total loss-absorbing capacity
...o stabilize the volatile banking system by providing an elastic currency, affording means to distribute the currency, and allowing for government supervision of banking operations. No longer were banks independent organizations working against each other. Now they were secure, interrelated operations. The Federal Reserve Act worked because it eliminated the competition to hoard money between the banks and put the power into the hands of the government. Now, credit could be made available to expanding businesses, jobs could be created, and the banks would no longer have to worry about bank runs "running" them out of business. Because of the Federal Reserve Act, the economy could once again become expansionary with confidence.
One of the major unintended impacts of the Dodd-Frank Act has been on credit unions and community banks. These banks weathered the credit crisis and lost only 6% of their share of banking assets between 2006 and mid-2010. A recent Harvard study indicates that this decline accelerated to 12% since the passage of the Dodd-Frank in July 2010. [a] While the community banks’ earnings increased by 12% to $5.3 billion by mid 2015 the number of these banks had declined according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The number of banks with assets under $1 billion has declined from around 7500 in 2010 to less than 6000 since Dodd-Frank came into effect. [b] Increased compliance costs due hiring of new personnel to interpret the new regulations compelled these banks to cut down on customer service amongst other things. The law hurt them disproportionately and forced them to consolidate. Regulatory economies of scale drive the process of consolidation. A larger bank is often more equipped at handling increased regulatory burdens
The term “too big to fail” became popular when a U.S. Congressman used it in a 1984 Congressional hearing. The theory behind “too big to fail” is that some financial institutions are vital to the economy because they are so big that if they were to fail that the economy would be in a disastrous state and therefore people believe that the government should step in and help support and save these financial institutions when they face problems. (Investopedia) I believe that this is right in assuming that the financial institutions are vital to the economy but I also believe that it is a waste of government and tax payers money to keep bailing out the big financial institutions every time they need to be bailed out. The solution that I and many other people believe to help this be less of a problem is to break up the bigger financial institutions into smaller ones.
The act allowed Bush to bypass certain laws and spy directly on Al-Qaeda by creating the NSA electronic surveillance program. As soon as the NSA electronic surveillance program was created, as far as
" The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, commonly known as the CFPB, has led the charge
" The Government-federal, state, and local-have the duty to monitor internet to a moderate extent in the U.S. because there is no law regulating to visualize other people's personal content or data. There are even protection laws that citizens use to advertise certain contents on the internet including other people's private email accounts.
The failure of adequate board accountability has indicated strong adverse effects on corporate performance including, the bankruptcy of various public companies, thereby casting serious doubt on the credibility and efficacy of board accountability. For example, Lehman Brothers scandal, the largest bankruptcy in U.S history, Northern Rock was a large failure of a financial institution in the United Kingdom (Hull 2015:16). In Ireland, the Anglo-Irish Bank created a huge bubble that plunged the state into economic recession. In September 28, 2008, the Irish Government signed into law, the “bank guarantee” which provided with immediate effect a guarantee arrangement to safeguard all deposits in retail, commercial, institutional and interbank transactions, covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt (Lenihan 2008). Banks in Ireland clearly needed yet more capital from the State (Irish Times 19 November 2011) and this underscores the need for the government’s bailout