myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/opinion/democrats-trump-dodd-frank.html
"This week, the Senate begins debate on the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, known as the Crapo bill for its primary sponsor, Mike Crapo, a Republican senator from Idaho. The bill would roll back or eliminate parts of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Crapo bill is unusual in today’s hyperpartisan environment: It has over 10 Democratic co-sponsors, many from swing or red states and up for re-election this year — like Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — making its passage possible...
...Why would some Democrats provide support for a rollback of Dodd-Frank? Proponents argue that this bill provides much needed relief for community banks and credit unions, which, these proponents claim, face enormous difficulties. They also say that it doesn’t endanger financial reforms aimed against the largest and most dangerous players.
But that view is mistaken: This bill goes far beyond the health of community banks and credit unions. It removes protections for 25 of the top 38 banks; weakens regulations on the biggest players and encourages them to manipulate regulations for their benefit; and saps consumer protections."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lief-bill-wins-approval-from-key-senate-panel
"The Senate bill would raise to $250 billion from $50 billion the asset threshold for banks to be subjected to stricter Federal Reserve supervision for systemically important financial institutions."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/6/17081508/senate-banking-bill-crapo-regulation
At the core of the Crapo bill is the assumption that the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul was overly aggressive and harmed smaller banks in attempting to rein in the larger financial institutions that caused the 2008 financial crisis.
The provision of the bill that has garnered the most attention is one that would raise the threshold at which banks are subject to certain federal oversight, including stress tests that measure a bank’s ability to withstand an economic downturn. Under current law, banks with assets of $50 billion or more are considered systematically important financial institutions (often referred to as SIFIs) and are therefore subject to stricter oversight from the Federal Reserve.
The Senate bill would increase the SIFI threshold to $250 billion. Banks with assets of less than $100 billion would be freed of current oversight requirements, and those between $100 billion and $250 billion would no longer be subject to tougher rules after 18 months, although the Fed could determine periodic stress tests and other tailored oversight measures. That would free up a lot of regional banks from the heightened regulatory scrutiny they face today, including BB&T, SunTrust Banks, Key Bank, and American Express. The bill could affect about two dozen banks in total.
A number of regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said that Dodd-Frank’s $50 billion threshold should have been set higher. Former Federal Reserve Gov. Daniel Tarullo, a Democrat, said in his “departing thoughts” in April 2017 that the $50 billion cutoff was “too low.” Even Barney Frank, the former Massachusetts Democratic representative who helped craft Dodd-Frank, has admitted that the $50 billion number was a “mistake.”
But the new $250 billion threshold has raised some eyebrows. In a recent CNBC op-ed, Frank said that were he still in Congress, he would vote against the bill because of the $250 billion mark. (He has suggested a threshold in the $125 billion range.) He pointed out that the failure of two or three such institutions would put us in “Lehman Brothers territory,” referring to the investment bank that filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, precipitating the financial crisis. Countrywide Financial, one of the country’s largest subprime mortgage lenders that was at the center of the 2008 mortgage crisis, had assets in the $210 billion range before it failed.
"This week, the Senate begins debate on the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, known as the Crapo bill for its primary sponsor, Mike Crapo, a Republican senator from Idaho. The bill would roll back or eliminate parts of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Crapo bill is unusual in today’s hyperpartisan environment: It has over 10 Democratic co-sponsors, many from swing or red states and up for re-election this year — like Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — making its passage possible...
...Why would some Democrats provide support for a rollback of Dodd-Frank? Proponents argue that this bill provides much needed relief for community banks and credit unions, which, these proponents claim, face enormous difficulties. They also say that it doesn’t endanger financial reforms aimed against the largest and most dangerous players.
But that view is mistaken: This bill goes far beyond the health of community banks and credit unions. It removes protections for 25 of the top 38 banks; weakens regulations on the biggest players and encourages them to manipulate regulations for their benefit; and saps consumer protections."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lief-bill-wins-approval-from-key-senate-panel
"The Senate bill would raise to $250 billion from $50 billion the asset threshold for banks to be subjected to stricter Federal Reserve supervision for systemically important financial institutions."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/6/17081508/senate-banking-bill-crapo-regulation
At the core of the Crapo bill is the assumption that the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul was overly aggressive and harmed smaller banks in attempting to rein in the larger financial institutions that caused the 2008 financial crisis.
The provision of the bill that has garnered the most attention is one that would raise the threshold at which banks are subject to certain federal oversight, including stress tests that measure a bank’s ability to withstand an economic downturn. Under current law, banks with assets of $50 billion or more are considered systematically important financial institutions (often referred to as SIFIs) and are therefore subject to stricter oversight from the Federal Reserve.
The Senate bill would increase the SIFI threshold to $250 billion. Banks with assets of less than $100 billion would be freed of current oversight requirements, and those between $100 billion and $250 billion would no longer be subject to tougher rules after 18 months, although the Fed could determine periodic stress tests and other tailored oversight measures. That would free up a lot of regional banks from the heightened regulatory scrutiny they face today, including BB&T, SunTrust Banks, Key Bank, and American Express. The bill could affect about two dozen banks in total.
A number of regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said that Dodd-Frank’s $50 billion threshold should have been set higher. Former Federal Reserve Gov. Daniel Tarullo, a Democrat, said in his “departing thoughts” in April 2017 that the $50 billion cutoff was “too low.” Even Barney Frank, the former Massachusetts Democratic representative who helped craft Dodd-Frank, has admitted that the $50 billion number was a “mistake.”
But the new $250 billion threshold has raised some eyebrows. In a recent CNBC op-ed, Frank said that were he still in Congress, he would vote against the bill because of the $250 billion mark. (He has suggested a threshold in the $125 billion range.) He pointed out that the failure of two or three such institutions would put us in “Lehman Brothers territory,” referring to the investment bank that filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, precipitating the financial crisis. Countrywide Financial, one of the country’s largest subprime mortgage lenders that was at the center of the 2008 mortgage crisis, had assets in the $210 billion range before it failed.
