35 Burst results for "Dodd Frank"
The Bitboy Crypto Podcast
A highlight from Behind Closed Vaults (The PREDATORY Nature Of Mega Banks)
"The best time to get a great deal on a Jeep SUV is now during the Summer of Jeep event. Visit jeep .com or your local Jeep brand dealer to find the perfect Jeep SUV for you. Hurry in and make this the Summer of Jeep. Right now during the Summer of Jeep, purchasing at 10 % below MSRP on the 2023 Jeep Compass Limited 4x4 or Renegade Latitude 4x4. Not compatible with lease offers or with any other consumer incentive offers. Contact dealer for details. Residency restrictions apply. Take retail delivery by 731 -23. Jeep is a registered trademark. Doesn't it seem to you that banking is becoming progressively worse and it's really happened in the last few years? Well, it's because it has. And this is just the beginning. Do you know how they say the larger banks are too big to fail? Well, unfortunately, for small town USA, the regional banks are too small to succeed. All of the money is systematically leaving smaller regional banks. It's going to larger ones, and it's all by design. This is the beginning of a seismic shift for the future of the banking sector, and it's time to take a dive into the mega bank monopoly. Let's get it! Welcome to BitBoy Crypto! My name is Ben. In this video, we're going to zoom in on the idea that our own government is encouraging the largest banks in America to engulf the smaller banks in a coordinated effort to centralize control. Understand that in today's financial climate, being a smaller bank is like bringing a slingshot to a shootout. We all know that money is power, and if my journey in crypto and politics has taught me anything, it's that America cares about one thing, having control. If you think things got bad in the last 20 years, just think about how much more control they'll have 20 years from now. And narrowing down who gets to control all the money is a great place to start. Now, before we get down into the nitty gritty, I want to keep it real with you. It's complicated as all this is about to get. I want to start off with a very basic concept so you can see firsthand how bad the situation already is. Let's take a quick look at this chart of the largest banks in the US. Does anything about this chart seem suspicious to you? Does anything seem wrong here? Look at the drastic difference between the big four and everyone else. Now, I can prove my point with just this chart. It's no secret who the big four banks are in the United States. JP Mortgage Ace, Bank of America, Citibank and Wells Fargo. And Wells Fargo has over a trillion dollars more than US Bank who's in fifth place. These four banks are the main players in the game, and it's most likely going to stay that way because these banks are the main benefactor and the dilemma our own government created. You should know that all of these banks are defined as GSIBs, or Globally Systematically Important Banks. Basically, they're held to a higher standard because of the risk they pose to the system if they were to fail. They get special treatment to avoid another terrible ending to a nonfiction movie. Alternatively, now that things have worsened for smaller regional banks, the Biden administration wants to change small bank standards so they have similar liquidity requirements to the larger ones. This tougher standard gives the smaller banks less wiggle room. When you pair this with high inflation and higher interest, what you'll eventually get is a seismic shift in the banking world because that standard is unattainable for more banks than you would think, and they're going to reach a point where the only way out is to consolidate. This concept is just the tip of the iceberg. Now, remember that first chart? Now, look at this one. This is a chart of deposits by bank size. How in the world are the small banks going to be competitive when they're getting outperformed this badly? It's like a high school team having to play, I don't know, the Georgia Bulldogs or maybe like another college team having to play the Georgia Bulldogs. They're that good. Believe me when I tell you though, banking is Darwinism at its finest. It's survival of the fittest. So, what do large fund investors think about this from an investment standpoint? We'll just ask Bill Negrin from Oakmark. Watch this. At Oakmark, our view has been that the largest banks have a strong competitive advantage versus smaller banks, and that the natural tendency is for the number of banks to shrink and the big to get bigger. They just have advantages when it comes to regulatory requirements, meeting regulatory requirements, mobilization, fraud control. If you're 10 times as big as somebody else, those costs aren't 10 times as large. Now, I want you to ask yourself, would investors on this scale waste their time investing in smaller banks? Of course not. Why would they? He said it himself. The number of banks is going to shrink, and the mega banks will keep adding zeros. To be fair, the US has more banks than all the other G7 countries combined. So, of course, there will be some consolidation, but when and where will it end? The problem is the standards of banking are what caused all the recent bank failures, and those same standards are preventing the smaller banks from getting larger. It's a double -edged sword. And there's no incentive for the government to find a middle ground. What do you think our government would rather do? Help the little man or continue co -signing to consolidation's decentralized control? I feel like you already know that answer. Now, I'm not exaggerating when I say that these banks are light years ahead of their competitors, and they really are too big to fail. Think of the enormity of advantage the big four has over the rest of the game. It's like playing Monopoly against the banker. They always roll doubles and don't play free parking. Instead, landing on Boardwalk and paying luxury tax out the wazoo. Now, why don't you play along with us and become a member of the BitSquad? Be sure to subscribe, smash that like button and ring the bell for notifications. Also, big thanks to Stake for sponsoring this video. They're our No. 1 sponsor. Check out bitboycrypto .com slash stake. Okay, let's look at the banking failures in recent history. You know, Silvergate, First Republic, Silicon Valley. And now look at that through the lens of how small businesses were forced to shut their doors because they couldn't compete with Walmart. It's the same thing. Look at it through the lens of cell phone companies. Yeah, there are smaller ones out there, but let's be honest. The majority go with either Verizon, T -Mobile or AT &T. It's not supposed to get boiled down to three like cell phones. It's for advantageous your everyday American to have multiple banking options because it forces the banks to be competitive with each other and actually have customer service. Stifling that competition leads to higher rates and less choices for customers, not to mention it sets the standard for anti -capitalism. It will also hinder innovation because smaller banks are more likely to offer innovative products and services to stand out in the crowd. With less banks to choose from, you won't be able to take your money and go down the street, shop for a better rate on a car loan. Unethical banking practices will only get worse because where are you going to go? Who are you going to go to? Do you think the bigger banks have any sense of sportsmanship for the smaller banks? Absolutely not. They don't want competition. This is a win for them. They want to crush them. It's all greed. Back before the sell -offs, the mega banks circled over Silicon Valley and First Republic like vultures. Did you know that JP Morgan's profits in Q2 this year jumped 67 %? Why? Because they bought out First Republic Bank, and in the process, they kept as many of their customers as they could, and not to mention interest rates are higher. One bank loss is another bank's gain. According to the Wall Street Journal, the 25 biggest US banks gained $120 billion in deposits in the days after Silicon Valley Bank collapsed. All the banks below that level lost $108 billion over the same time span. Some people like Jamie Dimon will tell you the worst is over. He's wrong. It's yet to come. Think about this. If the small banks have no choice but to keep consolidating the predatory practices the banks already pull on us, well, they're just going to multiply. Think about how much control your bank already has over you today. Hidden fees, higher rates and bidding over backwards just to get a small loan is one thing. But what about the headache you have to go through just to spend your own money? A bank shouldn't be able to tell you what you can or cannot spend your hard -earned money on. But they do this every single day. Don't even get me started. I can't even go to a normal bank. I really can't. They won't take me. And I'm not alone. Ask Drew about the time his bank didn't want him to take his own money out to buy a house. Ask AJ about the time his debit card got shut off with no warning. Ask Nick about the time they shut down his bank account for no reason at all. When he asked for an explanation, they told him they didn't have to tell him why. I can go on and on and on. Those are just people I know. And I'm sure you've got a personal nightmare story of your own. But the point I'm making here is it already feels like we have very little control in the institutions that were put there to protect our money. They don't respect us as humans. And it's all about the algorithms designed to facilitate the transfer of control. Unfortunately, the smaller banks are going to be forced to continue consolidating, giving all the money, all the power, all the control to the chosen elite. Obvious side note. Of course, they hate crypto. It's the only thing that gives the power back to the people. That's why they're pushing so hard to eliminate it. It scares them. You want to know what scares me more than anything? Regardless, if it's one bank, four banks or whatever with all the control, America's debt is at $32 .6 trillion and counting. Maybe not in my lifetime, but there has to come a moment where we stop kicking the can down the road, when you stop spreading risk around and centralized control. We enter a situation where there's a single point of failure, which would make this 10 times worse if it all comes crashing down. We don't even need a debt ceiling crisis to ruin the US credit system. We're already centralizing all the risk into four players. So how did it get this way? And why did these consolidations happen? Well, I'm sure you remember the 2008 banking crisis that ended in a bailout. Since the government and the FDIC don't want to take another den of that magnitude, they raised the standards for liquidity and put harsh restrictions on what banks can or cannot invest in. Some of you would know this as the Volcker Rule, which was part of the Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform Bill. You can thank our old friend the banking broad Elizabeth Warren for that one. This rule is why banks can no longer invest in anything that is deemed too risky. Sure, it prevents them from getting wrecked, but it also prevents them from using money to make money. And, of course, who suffers the most? The average Joe. You and me. So what are the banks doing now that they can't take risks on? To answer this, I want you to think back to the days when interest rates were much lower. Remember when money was cheap? It was easy to go to the bank and get a loan if you wanted to go buy a house. Why do you think so many people under 30 don't own homes now? Because they can't. That flexibility is gone. Anyway, back when interest rates were low and money was cheap, there was a lot of extra liquidity moving around the banking system. Because of that, you would see a lot of big investors and venture capitalist money moving into riskier startups and starting new businesses, and, of course, they'll get the money to do that from easier to get banking loans. When the conditions were like this, you would see a lot of uninsured deposits at the bank. Remember, since the banks can't take risk, they had to take safer long -term investments with their money. For the most part, they went heavy into government bonds and mortgage -backed securities, the kind of investments that are long -term and low risk. This move they were forced into making is part of what took them down. When the banks bought those safer securities, they essentially made a bet that the interest rates wouldn't go higher. And unfortunately, we all know what happened last year. Of course, myself, himself, Jerome Powell and the gang spent the entirety of 2022 hiking interest rates to fight against inflation. They spent the entire year creating more problems to combat a problem they created. It was a perfect storm in the worst way for your everyday American. Between higher rates and a tight money supply, people had no choice but to withdraw money out of the banks. And when banks start to see money flying out by the boatload, they get to a point where they have to sell those safer securities they bought with their excess money. The problem was because the rates were higher, the bonds they were forced to sell were sold at a loss. Because Trump rolled back some of the Dodd -Frank rules, some banks didn't have to report unrealized losses. But when unrealized losses become real losses, it became a much different story between taking those losses, bad management and making terrible risk assessments. That's when the dominoes started to fall. That's when banks like First Republic and Silicon Valley had no choice but to sell stocks and borrow large quantities of money from other banks. This caused their investor and customer base to lose confidence and try to pull their money out as fast as possible, especially those uninsured deposits who have more than 250 grand because the rest is uninsured. This right here is a main reason why so many people are siding with the big four banks because even if the FDIC insurance rate of 250K is the same for small and large banks, it would take catastrophic circumstances for large banks to fail, not to mention the government wouldn't let it happen anyways. People know that big banks won't fail, and they're not about to put their life savings into a circumstance where they can only get a quarter million back if the bottom falls out. And trust me, the interest rates, well, they're not quite done hiking yet. This cycle will repeat itself as many times as it has to. By now, you're thinking, is there some sort of plan? What are the regulators going to do? Watch this. This clip here really sums it all up. The regionals are problematic because they keep losing their deposits and have to keep reducing their balance sheet. So for the regionals, I don't think earnings have bottomed. And I wouldn't even think about buying them until I thought that they had. You know, you could traffic a little bit in the larger banks, but the problem is that Michael Barr, who's vice chair of financial services, just said that he's going to raise capital requirements for the large banks by 20%, which would take our ways down by 100 to 200 basis points. There's an irony in this, by the way. All the problems that happened in the banks were in the mid cap banks. The large banks, because of all the regulatory changes, were fine. So what do the regulators do? They go fight the last war and they're raising capital requirements of the large banks. Why? I mean, there's absolutely no reason for it, but that's what they're doing. Do the regulators do anything at all to help out the smaller banks? Of course not. In fact, they intend to raise capital requirements by 20 % for the larger banks, a surefire way to ensure the failure of everyone that's beneath them. It's as if they want to consolidate the power. Imagine that. The man from the previous clip, well, that's Steve Eisman. He's famous on Wall Street. If you've ever seen the movie The Big Short, his character was played by Steve Carell. And, yes, he really did answer his phone in that meeting. Prime losses will stop at 5%. Zero. Excuse me. I have to take this. He must be from Bank of America. All jokes aside here, what he just said in that clip is directly in line with the narrative of the regional banks failing and the larger banks taking over. I agree with him on that. Of all people, this guy knows dumpster fire when he sees one. I agree with him. The smaller banks have no choice but to keep reducing their balance sheets, and that's why they haven't hit their bottom. My opinion differs from him though when he says that there's absolutely no reason for the regulator's large bank reaction to the problems with the smaller banks. I have to disagree. The reason is right in front of our faces. The regulators are raising capital requirements for the larger banks to encourage them to keep getting bigger, and that consequently makes it that much harder for smaller banks to grow. On the flip side, the Treasury Secretary herself, Janet Fellen Yellen, aka the Tweety Bird Monster, will tell you that they're not encouraging this type of activity. Another classic example of watch what they do, not what they say. Now, this clip is my favorite. Check it out. So what is your plan to keep large depositors from moving their funds out of community banks into the big banks? We have seen the mergers of banks over the past decade. I'm concerned you're about to accelerate that by encouraging anyone who has a large deposit in a community bank to say, we're not going to make you whole. But if you go to one of our preferred banks, we will make you whole at that point. That's certainly not something that we're encouraging. That is happening right now. That is happening because depositors are concerned about the bank failures that have happened and whether or not other banks could also fail. No, it's happening because you're fully insured no matter what the amount is. If you're in a big bank, you're not fully insured if you're in a community bank. Well, in all my years of watching Janet no tell and yell and lie to Americans about how she's protecting them, I've never once seen her stumble and fumble over words like she did in this clip. The best part is 30 seconds after getting put in the political equivalent of a stone -cold stunner, she says that her judgment is that the banking system is safe and sound and depositors should have confidence. Hysterical. Then when asked why some banks get special treatment and why others don't, she said that she didn't know and it's up for the FDIC to decide. The links people like Janet yell and go to protect depositors all while simultaneously hurting depositors is astounding. Reminds me of Gary Gensler. And in that lies a part of the problem. Getting a straight answer from a politician is like asking your mom for $5 and she tells you to ask your dad and he tells you to ask your mom and you never get the $5. Lack of accountability in our government has a lot to do with the fact that it's so easy for a three -letter agency to point the finger at another three -letter agency to pass the buck. With this, they all maintain a level of plausible deniability and get to go home and tell their families they're making a difference. What a joke. It's a joke. But wait, this is our money. This is our freedom. It's not a joke. And what's anybody going to do about it? Look, it's as simple as this. Politicians and regulators need to wake up and get it through their heads that small town America needs smaller banks. Where are we supposed to go to get loans of the banks that used to support small businesses? Have their hands tied. And Jamie Dimon has the key. We need that competition for competitive rates, and we need small banks to keep innovating to earn their market share. At this point, with the way things are going for the regional banks to survive, they'll be forced to tighten lending standards, make fewer loans, slowing down the economy for everybody. And now, with Biden's knee -jerk push to heighten capital requirements on small banks, politicians cannot sit there with a straight face and say they're not encouraging the consolidations. I'm also not saying this great consolidation will happen overnight, take years, maybe even decades, let the right people get elected and care enough to prevent it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying small banks shouldn't have regulations. Of course they do. Just the right kinds of regulations that involve common sense. Banks should be transparent. They should take stress tests. They still need enough wiggle room to be competitive as well as profitable. Sad part is it would take nothing short of a miracle for the public's faith to be restored in smaller banks. Obviously, everyone wants their money to be safe, so don't blame anyone personally for jumping ship to a bigger bank if they have to or if you're allowed to. But when this happens in droves and the government is backing it, you have to play the tape out and see how slippery this slope really is. So, at this point, other than voting in the polls and with our wallets, there's only so much we can do to hold on to the little bit of control we have left. And we have to make the most of it that we can. First of all, you have to be aware that the landscape is changing. With that, you need to do your part and self -educate yourself and become self -reliant. I don't say it lightly. And if you made it this far in this video, you obviously care about your financial future, but you need to keep going. If you're someone who's struggling or even someone who's just trying to level up, you need to plan out every minute of your day so you can make time to be studying at least three to four hours a day minimum. If you're someone that's got a lot of moving parts, there's no shame in hiring a financial advisor or someone that can help you be more active with your wealth management. Understand that at the end of the day, the big banks don't care about you or your self -interest. It's only about the bottom line for them. So that's why you need to learn as much as you can and take the time to figure out what works for you. With that, don't make the mistakes, the same mistakes the banks are making. Don't put all your eggs in one basket and expose yourself to the risk of having a single point of failure. You cannot stress how important it is for you to diversify. Split everything up so if one vertical fails, you're still well above water. Consider buying gold, buying stocks, holding cash, buying digital assets like Bitcoin, or even ammunition. If diplomacy fails, water and ammunition will become currency. It's clear I've been hanging out with Drew too much, but, hey, he's right. He's also kind of scary, but I like him. He's a good guy. At the end of the day, your financial future is up to you. So I wish you the best on your journey and your never -ending pursuit of financial education. That's all I got. Be blessed. BitBoy out.
The Charlie Kirk Show
How Dodd-Frank Threatens Your Bank Choices and Your Liberty
"See, Barney Frank, who is a slob, we don't talk about Barney Frank very often we should. And I believe his name is Chris Dodd. They came out with Dodd Frank, not as a way to regulate banks, but they wanted to pseudo nationalize them through shrinking the amount of banks. This is a trend that we are seeing across the board. They want a smaller and smaller selection of companies that you are able to choose from. They want less banks. They want less beverage companies. They want less automobile companies. We have three or four automobile manufacturers if you count Tesla. In Canada, there are basically 5 national banks. Our huge array of local banks is not a law of the universe. In fact, if they're able to chip away at the fact that we have a regional bank there in a regional bank there and you got Wichita general there and you got first Tampa there and you got Des Moines regional there and they could chip it away and chip it away and either they collapse. They go under and they get eaten by JPMorgan or Bank of America that makes America less free. Their local and decentralized, which we talk about repeatedly local anti centralized power is a key to liberty. This accumulation of power and money is smaller in a smaller number of banks threatens our very liberty. So when they close these local banks, it's threatening our autonomy. It's threatening your ability. To be free of woke capital and these regional banks can not always be controlled by D.C. bureaucrats. This is a direct sabotage campaign to come from mom and pop banks to try to conform us into a national banking strategy controlled by a small select few of banks headquartered out of New York.
The Breakdown
Barney Frank Talks About the Surprise Shuttering of Signature Bank
"Let's start with that additional color around the shutdown of signature bank. Last week, Barney Frank, a board member at signature bank, and one of the sponsors of the famous Dodd Frank act sat down for a tell all interview with Barron's, which delved into the details of the final days for the bank. Frank explained that the Friday before the receivership, he was informed that the bank was quote bleeding deposits with around $12 billion leaving that day. On Saturday morning, bank management was in crisis mode, with Frank working the phones to talk to high ranking Democrat lawmakers and fed officials. Frank told Barron's that he called fed chairman Jay Powell and vice chairman for supervision, Michael Barr, as to whether emergency loans would be made available to the bank under section 13 three of the Federal Reserve act. Frank explained, quote, I told Powell, we're facing a bank run. We don't think we're the only ones. It's a classic case of a liquidity generated by some exogenous reason not related to the operation of the bank. Is that 13 three facility available? I think what Powell told me was, well, I'm not sure we hadn't thought about the facility yet. Certainly we're going to make the discount window fully available. Frank added that Powell told him Michael Barr is going to be taking the lead. Executives had also gone to the federal home loan bank for a loan and were told, quote, while there are so many runs on, we don't have enough money to do it all. By Sunday, signature was able to access the liquidity required via the discount window using agency MBS and treasuries as collateral. Initially, a concern as the bank held little acceptable collateral on its balance sheet. However, that on Sunday, the FDIC informed management that they would be putting the bank into receivership. Frank said that after they got that stabilized in the liquidity, quote, we were then surprised when they called up and said, we're coming over and shedding you down. When asked to comment on why he thought the bank was closed, Frank said, no question because of our prominent identification with crypto. I can't think of any other possibility, and like Sherlock Holmes says when you've eliminated every other possibility, what's left must be the one. The baron's article reiterated this point. If signature was in the regulatory crosshairs, they wrote because of its crypto business, and if there was a criminal probe and it then experienced a bank run, let's just say you can begin to see why regulators might not go out of their way to save it.
AP News Radio
Army of lobbyists helped water down banking regulations
"Recent bank collapses that prompted a federal rescue are a reminder of the power still held by Washington lobbyists. It seemed like a good idea at the time, in 2018 Republicans working with president Trump to slash bank regulations joined forces with red state Democrats facing grim reelection prospects. The group passed a bill that rolled back portions of the 2010 Dodd Frank law. The bill was marketed as a form of relief for overburdened community banks, but it also lifted the threshold for strict oversight and mandatory stress testing of large mid sized banks, it is now being blamed for contributing to the collapse of Silicon Valley bank and signature bank whose executives lobbied for the Bill, the effort drew an army of more than a thousand lobbyists, companies and trade groups specifically mentioning the legislation spent more than $400 million in 2017 and 2018, according to an Associated Press analysis, Americans for financial reform, a watchdog group says we can draw a direct line between the deregulation driven by the bank lobby, and the chaos of the last few weeks. Jennifer King, Washington
The Dan Bongino Show
Charlie Gasparino: The Actual Meaning of Dodd-Frank
"And I know that the Democrats keep saying they loosened Dodd Frank and that caused the banks that had less than 200 billion were no longer regulated by the fed which is wrong by the way Here's what they did with Dodd Frank What was they did was said if you are under $200 billion in assets you are no longer a systemically important bank You're not JPMorgan You're not going to blow up the whole system Those systemically important banks get double the regulatory oversight than you You still get regulatory oversight You just don't get the additional proctology exam You still get you still get exam A lot Right Now here's the thing In the middle of this exam how come these guys the Federal Reserve And it will be the San Francisco fed They didn't know that these guys had the most leveraged business model to one community that's highly interest rate dependent I just don't understand it It's mind boggling And this is not about deregulation This is about that I mean this is really a story that regulation never catches this stuff
Thinking Crypto News & Interviews
"dodd frank" Discussed on Thinking Crypto News & Interviews
"He was part of the financial committee. At one point, at the House financial services committee, and this was during the 2008 collapse. He was also the co sponsor of the Dodd Frank act, which was put into place to help address the banking issues that took place in 2008. Well, he was interviewed by CNBC and let me give you the context here. Signature bank board member Barney Frank says the bank closure was political. Here's a quote, I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti crypto message. We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals. So he's clearly saying this was an attack on the bank just because they were pro crypto. Silver gate was of course pro crypto. So was Silicon Valley bank. Now, not just crypto, right? They were supplying financial services to a lot of the tech industry. But Barney went off script here, exposing the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Gary genser and so forth. Operation choke .2 is a real thing, my Friends, and I think Barney Frank here. He has no reason to lie and some may say, well, wait a minute, Barney sits on the board, but we got some other folks validating this information like Nick Carter saying that he's spoken to other sources who said the same thing that Barney saying. So Nick said, dear God, Barney Frank openly admits that signature was arbitrarily shuttered despite no insolvency because regulators want to kill off the last major pro crypto bank. Colossal scandal. He says he heard this independently from other sources as well. I suspected as much last night, but confirmed today, signature was executed last night, not due to any runs, but as a political scalp, intended to be veiled by the fog of war. Apparently, even the FDIC was surprised when it was dropped into their hands, the claimed justification was signatures cygnet product, which was perceived to be systematic. Nick says here, my conclusion is that politicians like Elizabeth Warren together with regulatory bodies, fragile crypto banks and encourage runs against them. Then use withdrawals as a pretext, the close them down. What was meant to be a surgical operation because a massive banking became a massive banking crisis. So once again, we've talked about Elizabeth Warren sending letters, tweets, essentially starting and contributing to the bank runs. And then using those bank runs as situations to say, oh, you see, you got to shut this bank down. And then clearly going on the other side of the public and saying, see, see, crypto, crypto caused the collapse, right?
Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal
"dodd frank" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal
"Zone today, Silicon Valley bank, it's demise. What it means and what happens now. Our reporters coming up with some of the details we start though with deep ready. He's at Politico here today for a non Friday review of where things stand. Hey. Hey Kai. All right, so now that we are past the deja vu all over again because as we were talking about before the gong sounded, there was a little bit of that on Friday. Let me get you to the first thing I want to discuss. Two 1008, this is not that elaborate. This is absolutely not September 2008. I think we can clear that up. This is not a collapse. This is not a freefall in the economy. But there are other dates that we can think about. And we have been thinking about and over the weekend with other reporters and editors, we were all saying, is this march of 2008 when bear Stearns was rescued, was absorbed, fell apart, was absorbed by JP JPM and the federal government. Was this August of 2007 when we saw the first credit crisis cracks appear. And those are not dates you want to even be talking about either. Obviously this is different. This is even though it's exactly 15 years to the week since that moment in March of 2008. This will be its own. This will be the SVB issue that not only changes banking for generations, but also I think we'll reframe how we think about the role of government yet again in huge chunks of the economy. Say more about that, you use the word rescue, others are using the word bailout. There is a very important distinction and it applies to the depositors versus shareholders, talk about that a little bit. Who is being saved here, the shareholders are gone, the unsecured bondholders are gone. The board is gone. The executives are gone. They're all gone and they get what they deserve here. The real question here is, what should depositors, whether they're Silicon Valley startups or even small businesses? What should they have been expecting here from regulators? What do you think of when you put money into your bank that you're going to be able to get your cash? Not in silly investments. But in your bank, just cashing in the bank. And everybody assumes it's safe and the government made the decision here that you can't have a functioning economy. If you don't have that assumption. But there have been limits on deposit insurance for a reason because it costs money to do these things. And it was period of 72 hours to have the federal government without passing any new laws without having any public debate, essentially announce that those deposit limits are not really operative anymore. It's just fundamentally just a huge sea change in how we think about bank regulation and what that leaves regulators to do, which is to tighten up oversight over everyone and everything going forward, you don't want to be embarrassed again. And that is going to have an effect on businesses. It's going to have an effect. Obviously, on banks. But on everyone else in the risk aversion that comes up in a moment like this, suggests there's more to come in the ramifications, even if it's not a fall 2008 crisis. There will surely be congressional hearings, progressives in the Congress are already pushing for more regulation. Do you expect actually Congress to do anything or is this going to be the fed and the banking regulators sort of doing it on their own volition? The lesson from 2008 is that the lawmakers who are elected do not actually want to make these decisions. They did not want to make them in tarp in passing a bailout. They do not want to make them now. They passed a law that leaves it to the regulators to get beaten up over it, and that is what they're going to do. Now you kind of hope that when you see all of what's happened in markets and you see cheering in stock markets and you see all the crypto Bros who have been clowning around being anti government and then crypto value surge from government intervention, you got to scratch your head and think what on earth is going on here. What is this entire sector? How did all of this happen? There will be hearings. There will be screaming. There will be all the things to come. But this is the decision that has been made 15 years ago to leave it to the unelected officials to make these decisions to save the economy. And honestly, I think we all sit and watch this thing and just sit in absolute terror of what this would look like if this actually required the politics of today to resolve what we were dealing with over the weekend. Super quick, the Federal Reserve meets next week. Before any of this, everybody had said, oh, yeah, it's going to be 50 basis points half percentage point. What do you think? You know, we've been talking for how long about what's going to break. What's going to break when you and nobody knew, there's just this old saying in economics from an economist late economist Rudy dornbush, things take longer to happen than you think they will. And then they happen faster than you thought they could. And this is the thing. It takes so long for higher interest rates to create anything to break anything in a way that you're like, why is this taking so long after bludgeoning the economy, and here it is, and this is the effect. The fed obviously knows that they can't do anything that shakes the economy even more right now. They will almost certainly not be going 50 basis points in a rate increase, but take their time and try to figure out what the fallout is because it's going to take months to discover that. So deep ready at Politico on a not Friday, thanks. Thanks, Kai. Take care. Wall street today, this is firmly from the silver lining file, but traders are betting just as Steve said the collapse of SV meme means the fed's going to ease up a little bit on interest rates. Who knows? Details numbers. You know the drill. All right, so let's start digging into the details of how we got here. How did we wind up with banks failing so spectacularly and whose fault is it? The Federal Reserve said today it's going to do a review of the supervision of SVB. And President Biden said this morning you might have heard that he wants a full accounting of what happened, including what effect a relaxing of some of the Dodd Frank banking regulations that were Washington's response to the 2008 financial crisis as he was talking about, what effect those rollbacks might have had. Unfortunately, the last administration rolled back some of these requirements. I'm going to ask Congress and the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less likely this kind of bank failure would happen again. Marketplace is Kimberly Adams explains what happened and why it matters now. The original Dodd Frank law said that once a bank got bigger than $50 billion in assets, it would be subject to additional rules and oversight. Then came 2018 and the economic growth regulatory relief and consumer protection act, AKA the Dodd Frank rollback. Aaron lockwood teaches political science at UC Irvine. In 2018, the law said, oh, now that only applies to banks with more than $250 billion in assets. And it turns out Silicon Valley bank at the time it actually even last week fell under that threshold. Even though it was the 16th largest bank in the country, Dennis Kelleher is CEO of better markets, which lobbied against the rollback. Before the law was passed, banks the size of Silicon Valley bank would have been required to have more stress tests more frequently. And crucially to maintain more liquidity to, you know, help out in case of a bank run. There is definitely an I told you so moment for this, Carter Doherty is with Americans for financial reform. Congress chose and the regulators ran with it to peel back rules that would have given us a better chance of
ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
Joe Biden Blames Trump Administration for Bank Failures
"And I'm not quite sure Joe Biden understands what's really going on. Cut number 8 plays. And finally, we must reduce the risk of this happening again. During the Obama Biden administration, we put in place tough requirements on banks, like Silicon Valley bank and signature bank, including the Dodd Frank law to make sure that the crisis we saw in 2008 would not happen again. Unfortunately, the last administration rolled back some of these requirements. I'm going to ask Congress and the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less likely this kind of bank failure would happen again. And to protect American jobs and small businesses. Look, the bottom line is this, Americans can rest assured that our banking system is safe. Your deposits are safe. Let me also assure you we will not stop at this. We'll do whatever is needed. On top of all that, let's also take a look at a moment to put the situation of broader context. We've made strong economic progress in the past two years. We created more than 12 million new jobs. More jobs in two years than any president has ever created in a single four year term. Unemployment is below 4% for 14 straight months. Take on paper workers is going up, especially for lower and middle income workers. And we've seen record numbers of people apply to start new businesses more than 10 million of them more than 10 million applications over the net last two years, starting businesses. Now we need to keep the program this progress going. That's what swift action that my administration over the past few years is all about. Protecting depositors, protecting the banking system, protecting the economic gains we've made together for the American people. Thank you, God bless you and may God protect our troops. Thank you. So look, anyway, look, here's the deal. They're bailing out this bank. They're not calling it a bailout, but that's exactly what it is.
The Dan Bongino Show
Stephanie Ruhle Admits the Value of Banking Deregulation
"Yet Stephanie ruhle at MSNBC on her Twitter feed important reminder Republicans rolled to rollback bank risk oversight rules In other words trying to blame it on Trump and the Republicans which was weird Jim because Jim found this crazy this is Stephanie ruhle right Jim has so nuts I wake up this morning dance like Jim's like Dan is this Stephanie rule You just sent me this tweet because this is Stephanie ruhle Wendy bank measure in the Trump administration was passed with Republican and Democrat support This is Stephanie ruhle saying hey man that rule is really great because it prevents midsize banks from being wrapped by big banks that would scoop them up through to regulatory capture It's so weird It's almost like Stephanie rule is lying Here check this out So what is the new legislation do It raises the threshold from 50 billion to $250 billion in which banks are deemed too big to fail These banks will not have to undergo stress tests to prove they can survive in other economic freefall And it leaves fewer than ten big banks in the U.S. subject to stricter federal oversight Joining me now CNBC editor at large John harwood John I'm just going to start with I think this is a really good idea In 2008 2009 I worked in investment banking I was in the gnarliest part of the business in structured credit derivatives and banks took way too much risk and we didn't have enough cash in reserves But when Dodd Frank was put into place it brushed every bank in the same way and we were subject to regulatory capture So those massive JPMorgan's of the world they can afford to hold more capital They can hire a thousand more compliance officers but if you ran a smaller midsize bank that predominantly did loans in the Midwest you couldn't possibly afford that And they were the institutions that got strangled
The Dan Bongino Show
Joe Biden Blames Silicon Valley Bank Failure on Donald Trump
"Here's what happened with this bank For the first time in my disgusting pathetic life I'm going to tell you the truth This bank invested in a lot of government bonds Inflation was ugly I'm trying to get it under control I'm just suggesting a speech for Biden We're doing the best we can but this bank was the first victim I think we've contained it You should not rush to the bank your money's insured up to $250,000 But we got to do something about the spending that caused this crisis Joe Biden's approval rating would go up 20 points But D doesn't have it in him because he's filth He's garbage He has no character at all So what does he do Comes out and gives a speech And blames it on Donald Trump Take a listen And finally we must reduce the risk of this happening again During the Obama Biden administration we put in place tough requirements on banks like Silicon Valley bank and signature bank including the Dodd Frank law to make sure that the crisis we saw in 2008 would not happen again Unfortunately the last administration rolled back some of these requirements Which one Which one jackass Which one Well you know how to say that But which one Although all you liberals listening on which one which regulation did they violate I'm waiting Anything Maybe we don't ever respond We only have crickets We only have crickets Which one Which regulation they bought The answer is that you just made that up Because the guy in The White House is human garbage
The Café Bitcoin Podcast
"dodd frank" Discussed on The Café Bitcoin Podcast
"Week of financial stocks. It's going to be your number one go to signal as to where we are going in the global financial system. I'm sorry to jump on top of Larry. I'm just so I'm living. I'm fucking livid with this system. Completely agree with your flaws. I'm fucking disgusted. Let me just add a few comments here. What they did is just totally outrageous the fed just became the FDIC. They just backed the entire banking system and, you know, the press release they said they're going to the 25 billion of the ESF is going to be committed to this. I mean, what are they fucking kidding me? If there's $900 billion of market market losses easily and probably more in the system, and you know, they just, this is QE infinity or FDIC insurance infinity. And there was a great tweet that I retweeted this morning by a guy named BBL's ghost a friend and a good guy. He said, in all markets, eventually the biggest market maker backstop is tested and then fails. And the fed is the biggest backstop and they are going to fail. And that's really the bottom line. They can paper over this one just like the paper it over. I was thinking they were going to fumble the ball on this one. I wasn't quite sure how they were going to pull this off because, you know, as you know, Dodd Frank made what they did. It prevented them from doing something like this. But of course they created some new system. They've got this BTF P that can give money to these banks. What I can't imagine is, I mean, if you were a bank, wouldn't just every single bank in the world that had assets below market, you know, deposit them at the fed, admittedly. They got to pay 4.75% on them, but you know, you could get them off your sheet and free up that capital and go gamble again. And they probably will knowing that you're fully backstopped. I mean, it's outrageous. Absolutely outrageous. And the whole claim by the administration and the fed and the treasury that this isn't going to cost the tax credit, right? That's like the greatest fly ever told. I mean, how does it not cost the taxpayer something as we continue to print and dilute this money supply more monetary?
Bloomberg Radio New York
"dodd frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Becomes the latest American president to address the nation in hopes of preventing a panic. Shoring up confidence in the financial system or so was the mission speaking from The White House before the markets open today. Hey, thanks for the quick action in my administration over the past few days. America's going to have confidence that the banking system is safe. Your deposits will be there when you need them. Small businesses across the country, the deposit accounts that these banks can breathe easier, knowing they'll be able to pay their workers and pay their bills. Recalling president George W. Bush's address of the American people September of 2008, remember, led to the Dodd Frank law, even though it took a minute, some of which was then rolled back by president Trump as the president today reminded us. During the Obama Biden administration, we put in place tough requirements on banks like Silicon Valley bank and signature bank, including the Dodd Frank law to make sure that the crisis we saw in 2008 would not happen again. Unfortunately, the last administration rolled back some of these requirements. I'm going to ask Congress on the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less likely this kind of bank failure would happen again. Indeed, then president Trump signed the economic growth regulatory relief and consumer protection act into law in 2018, freed up mid sized firms like SVB from some of the strictest regulations. And cut their compliance costs. Here he is that day. Since its passage in 2010, Dodd Frank has dealt a huge blow to community banking. As a candidate, I pledge that we would rescue these community banks from Dodd Frank. The disaster of Dodd Frank, and now we are keeping that commitment and all of the people with me are keeping that commitment. Not that it didn't come without debate, senator Elizabeth Warren on the floor. During that throwdown. This is madness. This is greed, run wild. Read run wild. But there's a debate about whether the changes in 2018 were actually at fault here, or whether this was a matter of enforcement, lack thereof, and that is where we begin. With senator Bill haggerty, of course, serves on the Senate banking committee and he's back with us. Here on Bloomberg sound on. Senator is great to have you here. You were actually standing right in front of SVB bank. We saw you there in a video that you posted on Twitter over the weekend. I know you're in California for some other matters. You said in that video that you're going to get to the bottom of this. What's your plan? Well, I just got off the phone with officials from treasury and the FDIC. I must tell you, I'm very disappointed that we're not talking about who the acquirer is. And who's going to take care of the borrowers of this bank? Auction process over the weekend failed. During the weekend, they actually did receive a bid. I urged strongly that they should take the most competitive offer. And have a bank in place today with the market open. Indeed, they allowed they allowed the bid to fail. And they've got now a situation where they save taxpayers are not on the hook for this. But every bank in America is going to get an increased fee based on the amount of the divots that has to be covered. And last time I checked, banks in America pay taxes too. So this is something that we've got to navigate through. I really think that there's some serious questions here though. Clearly, Silicon Valley bank was mismanaged. They had very well connected CEO who was on the board of the San Francisco fed. I don't think enough people have asked, where was the San Francisco fed in terms of its regulatory oversight or the regulatory agencies asleep at the wheel here? Was it a management team that was more focused on ESG and cashing out stocks than they were in managing their bank confidently? There are many, many questions to be answered to your job. Are you using the word bailout then? Well, I would say that if you talk about who's going to bear the brunt of this, it's a matter of semantics when they say there will be increased fees to banks throughout the system. Those banks, again, will have to pay taxes that's coming out of those fees coming out of their cost structure, those fees will likely be passed along to tend to Tennessee and to national taxpayers here. Cost taxpayers end up pulling the bag anyway. Did you learn on that call today? Was their news because boy, we've been in a news vacuum largely over the weekend. Could there still be a deal, senator? Well, when I spoke with FDIC officials, they said that their intention was to put a process back together again and they had a bid, they informed me that they did have a bid for the bank over the weekend. They declined a bit evidently. And they want to come back and re attack this. I think it's going to be very, very difficult, though. And I tried to remind them that their many, many borrowers who are small startup firms that are now without a banking relationship as any certainty. This is going to create a knock on effect in our high-tech sector. I hope that the efforts that they're making will certainly calm the deposit base in America. We've been very concerned about the impact of this on regional banks and not to allow this to precipitate a massive move to the largest banks in America for safety. I hope that that those communications work and that will sort of sort itself out, but I am still very concerned about the situation that we've left ourselves in with specifically with Silicon Valley bank. It's borrowers and the implication is going forward. If the changes were not made to Dodd Frank in 2018, would this still
Bloomberg Radio New York
"dodd frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Watch it in D.C.. We're going to get world national news from Amy Mars. All right, thank you, Paul, former congressman Barney Frank known for the Dodd Frank act is a signature bank board member and tells Bloomberg markets. This is not a widespread set of failures. People's payroll is going on beyond that. What's going to happen is that the FDIC is going to sell the bank. I predict that they're going to get a pretty good price for it. Where my congressman Barney Frank now a signature bank board member says Dodd Frank worked because he says, quote, nobody is talking about anything like they did in 2008. President Biden plans to ask Congress to strengthen regulations for the banking system as he sought to reassure the public about the state of the U.S. economy following the collapse of the two banks. The president says they had regulations in place. Unfortunately, the last administration rolled back some of these requirements. I'm going to ask Congress and the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less likely this kind of bank failure would happen again. The president is seeking to reassure the public about the state of the U.S. financial system after the collapse of SVB and signature bank, which raised fears of a full blown banking crisis. Now treasury secretary Janet Yellen says there is no government bailout for SVB. We're certainly not looking and the reforms that have been put in place means that we're not going to do that again, but we are concerned about the positives and are focused on trying to meet their needs. Secretary Janet Yellen made the comments on face the nation on CBS heard Sundays on Bloomberg radio. Pershing square capital management's Bill ackman says that regional bank stocks are an incredible bargain right now, as long as the government does the right thing. Global news 24 hours a day powered by more than 2700 journalists
The Ben Shapiro Show
"dodd frank" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"If your SVB, that's kind of what this looks like in practice, actually, just without just what the federal government is kind of the shadow monster in the background waiting to do all of these things. There's also the bank term funding program that is going to have, it's going to be a federal lender, SVB problems, it had too much of its money invested in long-term treasuries and mortgage backed securities that tanked in value as the fed raised those interest rates. There are other banks with the same problem to make sure they don't suffer the same fate. There's a new agency, yay, new government agencies. It will allow them to access loans with generous terms. Instead of having to sell off their interest rate ravaged treasuries, they'll be allowed to use them as collateral for a loan at their original value. So they are going to now get a loan from the federal government on the basis of the bonds that they are still holding. Now, federal government, of course, has an interest in that. They don't want to see the bottom markets. The secondary bond markets absolutely tank, which again would force another rate rise, presumably in the interest rates. Meanwhile, New York based signature bank was closed and we'll get the same exact treatment as SVP. This one's pretty spectacular. Considering that SVP, that's one thing. Signature bank. Is a person on the board is Barney Frank, Barney Frank is the guy who was involved in Dodd Frank. Barney Frank was the head of the House financial services committee for decades. And he was on the board over at signature banquet shows you that the regulators who are very often in charge of these banks, let's just say that they have a finger in the pie. Very often. And they never bear the results of their own bad decision making. So in a second, we'll get to the problems. There are really two problems here of systemic moral hazard. We get to that in a moment first. All of us can aid you pretty dramatically, but you need to make sure that your skin is bright and young and beautiful, and this is where genu sell skin care comes in. Share it from a Nebraska says I had sensitive skin. I'm careful about all products. My husband bought me genuine cell bags and puffiness, and Jenny sell deep performing serum. I felt it working immediately. My eyes look amazing, my face feels smooth and wrinkle free. It's not just sherry, Jenny salt has sold over 1 million products to both women and men across the nation. Say goodbye to the fine lines, wrinkles, even those annoying under eye bags.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"dodd frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Right here on Bloomberg radio on John Tucker, and that is your Bloomberg business flash Matt and Paul. Tucker, thank you so much. We appreciate it. I want to get right into this segment. Joe, why isn't the host of odd lots podcast Bloomberg news joins us here? Which, by the way, thanks to his partner Tracy alloy, that is a great listen. I highly recommend. No, it's all Tracy. I'm trying to just be honest here. Hey, Joe, we're perfect timing today. Perfect timing. Why the U.S. backstop after SVB failure is a bailout. I don't even know why it's a debate. Yeah, I don't know. Someone this morning, I think bassi suggested it was a non bailout bailout, but it's a bailout. Equity. Yeah, but here's the thing. And this is why, I mean, yes, in the case of SVB, the equity was wiped out. But you know, like, we misremember 2008. Citigroup shares fell 98% that year. That was a de facto equity wipeout. So even the most quintessential charts you have city and AIG is there should be a reminder to people that even in the most famous bailouts of all time, these were not some big shareholder rescues. And the arguments for why this different innocent depositors, people that just wanted to get their money out, that was why we did tarp and all that. People think was like, oh, we were like, protect the CEOs. Very, of course, there's some details different circumstances very different, but fundamentally, those bailouts were not about protecting management. The AIG management was replaced. The government installed in the summer of 2009. Not that much different fundamentally a little bit, but like this is what we call, this is what a bailout is. I mean, I think it's so clear that I can't even believe anyone with questions. Well, now that Joe explained it to me, I get it now. I mean, look, if you had depositors who were like, okay, we know FDIC insurance goes up to 250,000. But we're going to put $3 billion in there. I mean, that's just a dumb risk tipping. And now they're getting bailed out. You know, I think like, what is the difference between a bailout versus like the FDIC just doing its job? I say if you announce a new rule over the weekend that was not in place. And the fed definitely did that because what did they say? What was in the world? Well, one of the key things to do is for all banks, they can now for the next year pledged their treasury. And par, which is a pretty big thing after the mark to market hit. Right. So that's a de facto capital injection that the fed did, which is another thing you don't want to say. You think this is bad policy Joe? And this goes back to 2000. I'm going to say I'll say this. I'll say two things. I don't feel like comfortable assessing the exact implementation of smarter people than me. But you got to stop a bank run. Okay. And so, I mean, I think that's clear. Look, there's multiple failures would likely have happened today and you just get those don't stop on the road, right? Once they get going. You can't no country can have a wholesale run on it. The other thing to me is that they did just that and I thought, I mean, exactly. There could be unintended consequences. Who knows what they'll be. There will be. I'm sure. But they put a stop to the banker on so swiftly that it surprises me to see so many shares down today. Why? I am surprised too. I mean, it may just be even still, I have to say, I'm surprised, and you know, to me, yesterday ended the debate about whether there will ever be a cat on deposit insurance. All deposits to my mind are effectively doing. Yeah, and I don't see it's like when I just don't see this. I think the debate is over that if you have a deposit on a bank and they might change the reg so that banks have to be more careful and have more liquid assets, but I think basically the fed has told us that from here on out, it's almost at any level. So does Dodd Frank does do you think it will be implemented down to smaller regional banks? So this is there's backstory here because I guess in 2018, there were an ever people, including some SVB executives who were lobbying against Dodd Frank. Overseeing or regulating banks with smaller amounts of deposits like less than 250 billion. Certain liquidity requirements ability to make withdrawals, you know, the thing is maybe that will go into force right now. You know, the other thing I'll say is, however, when you have an instantaneous, massive bank run, then I'm not even sure that more liquidity requirements actually would have saved them. Maybe it would have a little bit, but the scale of the demanded withdrawals on Friday was like so far like orders of magnitude off the charts, but it does seem likely now that people are going to look, but it's going to be, you know, there's like real fights. I think the big fight that's coming in my opinion is not even necessarily going to be about the degree to which certain Dodd Frank requirements apply to some of the smaller or the regional banks. But the deeper fight is like, well, Canada has like 6 banks. No, they don't have a really small bank. We have like thousands and thousands of banks in this country. And I think there's going to be a fight now about like, well, why do we have so many banks and you're going to, and I think it will be very intense. Do we want to just have JPMorgan and city and wells and if you others? Why is that? Why do we have so many versus say Canada, for example? I wish I knew the banking history. I think it has to do with like our populist past this. That there has been a deep discomfort throughout American history about the centralization of banking power. And I think that's like a very sort of like historical thing we associate with you. A lot of people did not want banking held in just a few hands. And I think we still have that today, but look, a lot of people are asking, they're like, wait, do I want to be exposed to a bank that has very specific geography geographical exposure? Do I want to be exposed to a bank that is just like exposure to a specific industry that kind of just opened a chasing? I mean, who cares? We have one search engine. Globally. And we have like three social networks, one of which is controlled by the Chinese. I mean, we don't care about anything like that anymore. I think a lot of people are just going to say, you know what? I'll just go to chase. And so I do think some of these moves that we're seeing might not be bank run type panics, but just could be like the expectation that a lot of their depositors are going to migrate anyway, even if they're not afraid. Do you think it's, I mean, to me, this may just be a silly little detail that I can't get over, but they had a $91 billion portfolio of hold maturity securities. And only a 170 billion in deposits. It seems like the worst mismanagement of duration risk of any bank in America. I mean, I've been scanning the FAs of every bank I can pull up on the Bloomberg. Nobody had that much. It does seem weird. Like, it does seem something was off. And again, I talk about questions that I personally don't feel particularly, you know, I'm not a no one should hire me as a bank risk manager. It does seem there was something very strange about their arrangement. But like I think in a normal time, I also think that why did everyone rush out of this bank that was operating people seem to like in 24 hours? This is the new world and I do think like social media group chats, what's happened, et cetera was also part of this. Yeah, they announced like a couple $1 billion in an equity raise and all of a sudden the most important VCs in California are like, everybody get out. Yeah. It's odd. Everything about this seems to like the way I think about it is like everything about this sort of like hit in a sort of risk scenario that just
The Doug Collins Podcast
John Berlau From CEI Talks About the Economic Landscape
"To have you back on the show. I mean, lots going on. We're going to get to the CFPB stuff here in just a minute. But give me just sort of an impression. I mean, we've been talking about markets. We've been talking about, you know, over time when you've been with us before, that business issues and things going on in our financials. Where do you see us right now, John? There's a lot of folks out there that are still, you know, looking at the fan, they're looking at the now unfortunately unfortunately, having to look at it and getting into a political season, where are you looking at it right now? I look at the market, I never underestimate the initiative and entrepreneurship and innovation of the American people. No matter what politicians do to them, as my colleague Wayne Cruz says at CEI, we don't all politicians. You don't need a stimulus. All you need is just to remove the rocks on the that are keeping the garden from growing. And there are a lot of rocks, but people are find ways to get around them. And now with divided government with the Republican House, you have at least somewhat of a break and hopefully the courts that Trump appointed judges and maybe others who will see the who will take seriously the constitution will also give American entrepreneurs a break. Like in this case where they hopefully will place the consumer financial protection bureau some monstrosity created by Dodd Frank to be escaped the accountability of both the president and Congress under some constitutional constraints.
Opening Arguments
"dodd frank" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"And if you follow, you know, the ordinary model of jurisprudence, you might ask, hey, has the Supreme Court ever ruled on what the appropriations clause means? And as it turns out, they have. And relatively recently by which, you know, I mean, 1990, right? So, and also that ruling is very, very, very, very clear, right? That case was called office of personnel management V Richmond, four 96 U.S. four 14, and it was a 7 two decision and the two dissents came from the court's most liberal justices. Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan. So again, this was not a controversial, crazy wacko lefty opinion, right? Right. That case was about paying benefits to retirees out of the civil service retirement and disability fund. You know, which also makes it pretty close on the facts of this case. And the court, I can't emphasize this enough, was crystal clear what the appropriations clause means, so let's quote it directly and at unnecessary length. Our cases underscore the straightforward and explicit command of the appropriations clause, it means simply that no money can be paid out of the treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress, spoiler alert, Dodd Frank is an act of Congress. And then, for good measure, just to make sure no dumb Supreme Court in the future of 5th circuit could ever misinterpret this, they added the command of the clause, is not limited to the relief available in a judicial proceeding, seeking payment of public funds. Any exercise of a power granted by the constitution to one of the other branches of government is limited by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the treasury. So again, Congress, Dodd Frank has exercised control over the funds in the treasury, so case closed. No, not case closed because you, my friend, are thinking like a lawyer instead of a howler monkey on the Supreme Court. And those people only care about what guys in powdered wigs thought in the 18th century. So here's the thing. The good guys should win that argument too, because the whole point of the appropriations clause was the power of the purse, right? The idea, and this is explicit throughout the federalist papers and the early framers writing was that they did not want the constitution to permit some kind of loophole where the executive, where the president could take unilateral action, rack up a whole bunch of expenses and then leave Congress holding the bag and forced into a hobson's choice between defaulting on debt, which would be bad. Or being forced to pay for something they had an authorized, which would be bad. So this clause serves as a check on the executive branch, not a check on Congress, which is, you know, the bizarre reading given to it by the fourth circuit. And we will find even more about what people 250 years ago thought about online micro lending after the break. Hey guys, this is an ad for Rex MD, the most trusted leader in men's telehealth. And by men's telehealth, I meet erectile dysfunction sexual healthcare growth. You know, the stuff that guys are sometimes nervous about for no reason. Erectile dysfunction is a common medical issue that over 30 million men in the U.S.
Opening Arguments
"dodd frank" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"So she resigned January 20th, 2021. She was replaced with the current CFPB director Rohit Chopra, and Chopra then reinstated one of those two payday lender rules, and that takes us to today. Cordray resigned to run against a wine for governor of Ohio. Yeah. Anyway. Fun fact didn't win. Okay. But The Oprah. That was, that's not. Well, that. Anyway, the rule Chopra put back in place is called the payment provision, and it's at 12 CFR section ten 41 8. And it just a quick note, CFR stands for the code of federal regulations, and it's exactly what it sounds like. So when Congress makes new laws, they go into the U.S. code, which is why we're citing USC all the time. It's not for the college or the sports conference. So anyway, when executive branch agencies make regulations pursuant to those laws, they go in the CFR. And the rule that Chopra made prohibits payday lenders from attempting to withdraw funds from a borrower's bank account after two consecutive failed attempts due to insufficient funds. That is bounce checks. Unless the borrower specifically authorizes additional attempts. So they can't continue coming to your account and trying to get money every time you bounce a check. And yes, payday lenders do strong arm the borrowers into authorizing those repeated attempts, but you know, it would be better to have a law that protects consumers than say not. Yeah, and in fact, that is another sub restriction on what was the common practice before this rule went into effect, which was payday lenders would when they handed you that giant four point font document to borrow the $300 in the first place. They would make you sign a pre authorization for future access to your bank account in advance before the first loan as part of that giant pile of paperwork that no one but me reads, right? So put it all together. The payday lender rules pretty modest, right? It doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't regulate these monsters out of existence, but you know, like you said, it's a step in the right direction. And the CFPB found quite sensibly that, you know, after a lender made two consecutive attempts to withdraw payments from your bank account and it fails and it bounces, quote, further attempts are very unlikely to succeed, yet they clearly result in further harms to consumers, right? In the form of the overdraft fees, right? So absent a new and specific authorization and not just that boilerplate pre authorization crap. The CFPB determined that it would be, quote, unfair and abusive. For lenders to continue to attempt to withdraw those payments. Right, that language is key because remember, an executive branch agency can not make a law, only Congress can make a law. What the agencies can do is enact rules when they're given the authority to do so by Congress, right? So here are the authority comes from the 2010 Dodd Frank act, which you might remember is that comprehensive response by Congress to the 22,008 financial crisis, which tanked the economy and led to all those foreclosures that displaced 10 million people from their homes, not great. Yeah, yeah. And so Dodd Frank, among other things, established the consumer financial protection bureau, and again Elizabeth Warren, that was her brainchild when she was a Harvard Law professor, right? And what they did was they created it as an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve system. That's right there in the law, right? 12 USC 54 91. And they authorized the CFPB to quote implement and where applicable enforce federal consumer financial law to ensure, among other things, that quote consumers are protected from unfair deceptive or abusive acts and practices. So put all that together. The Dodd Frank act said here. We've had unregulated capitalism that turned out to be terrible 10 million people were displaced from their homes. It tanked the economy. We're going to create a watchdog organization. And we're going to give that group a power to make rules that protect consumers from unfair deceptive or abusive acts and practices. And then, a decade later, that group that CFPB found that the way payday lenders try to collect loans is unfair deceptive or abusive. So case closed, right? Maybe not actually case closed, because as it turns out, the CFPB while not perfect. Actually, did and does a lot of good things because there are a lot of corporations out there engaged in unfair deceptive or abusive practices to our consumers. For example, in 2016, the CFPB sued and won a $132 million in restitution and another $40 million in civil penalties against a scumbag debt relief company called Morgan drexel. So, you know, when basically everyone who engages in unfair deceptive or abusive acts and practices towards consumers was hired by the Trump administration, one of those people's top priorities was to start a war on multiple fronts to try and nerf everything that the CFPB could possibly do to protect consumers. Yeah, and I don't want to get stuck on the rabbit trail, but they're most successful effort was a case called sail a law LLC versus the CFPB. That could be its own deep dive, maybe we will do it someday, but that was yet another Roberts court 5 four decision with the then four liberal justices in dissent that somehow found that Congress was not free to create the CFPB with any meaningful degree of independence from regime change, right? So as I alluded to, the original Dodd Frank bill provided that the director of the CFPB would serve a 5 year term and could only be fired for cause. And that was defined in the law as, quote, inefficiency neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Now look, that's still pretty broad. That's still covers a lot of things, but, you know, it's not going to be fired at will. And so a different scumbag debt servicing firm. This one called sale a law decided to sue, arguing that Trump should be able to fire the director for any reason whatsoever because he's their God king and you know why not turn the whole thing into a political football despite the fact that Congress is clear intent was to do the exact opposite. And of course they won because, you know, John Roberts remains deeply conservative no matter what Politico tries to tell you every couple months. Amen to that sister. Anyway, that brings us to this lawsuit, which started life in 2018 back when both provisions of the payday lending rules were in place and Mick Mulvaney was active director, just as a little aside, remember that fun time when Mick Mulvaney was simultaneous like White House chief of staff, head of The Office of management budget and head of CFPB and I just looked this up because I was like, didn't this?
Bankless
"dodd frank" Discussed on Bankless
"Company and put your crypto there. They hold it for you. And that's all kosher with the SEC. If they change that definition, they would make it impossible or very difficult potentially for all of these investment advisers to custody crypto assets so they would have to before whatever effective date of the rule if it goes into effect withdrawal and get rid of those crypto assets because they couldn't offer those products, wind down those funds. All of that. And this is all rumored it's speculative. But there seems to be a leak with the SEC because there was a Bloomberg article that dropped today confirming that this may be happening. And it would be proposed as a rule, it would go through notice and comment, but we saw in the prior administration when they were trying to crack down on non custodial wallets within the treasury, they put these things out potentially very quickly and give 30 days for notice and comment and just ram it through. And share gensler has done this at the CFTC when he was enacting all the Dodd Frank regulations after the financial crisis. He pushed them through very, very fast. And so if this happens, it can happen very quickly.
Real Estate Coaching Radio
"dodd frank" Discussed on Real Estate Coaching Radio
"So it's also accumulation. The American Dream is locked in and it's a fabric of different ideas, but definitely homeownership is one of them. That's right. And remember, as we've previously discussed, very high equity, unlikely to create upside down loans, part of that also, and this isn't talked about enough in my opinion, is the Dodd Frank act that tightened up so many lending standards that everybody temporarily freaked out about. It was so hard to get a mortgage for a while. But that has given us a net result of very high lending standards, the amount of subprime loans funky loans, no income, no Doc ninja loans, whatever. Those are micro percent of the market right now. It's not, I forget the very high percent it was in the O 7 and O 8. It was through the rough. It was virtually anybody could get a loan even if you didn't have a job. Yeah, and that Dodd Frank thing is something that came from the government came from those two senators. I think it's been a good thing though. It's been a hell of a good thing. Because people had to have higher qualifications, more down payment, but it also made it nearly impossible for any of the hijinks that were happening in appraisal to happen. Yeah, that's true too. I mean, the appraisal thing, we haven't talked about that. The impact that that had. But ultimately, this comes down to a simple supply and demand equation as long as we have low or low ish inventory and we have high demand. And we don't have distressed out there, then of course there's not going to be a housing crash. So please stop saying that. Please stop wishing for it. It is not a good thing. Okay. But mostly, you've got to start thinking it's going to happen because again, if you think it's going to happen, if you think tomorrow is not going to be better than today, you're not going to learn how to actually have meaningful conversations with sellers or buyers that's going to result in a real estate transaction. You're not going to make yourself more desirable as a real estate professional. All the things you're not going to do in anticipation of tomorrow, not being better than today, will absolutely positively, guess what? Make it so your tomorrow is not better than today. So those of you who believe in the law of attraction, if you're following those headlines and believing it tomorrow is not going to be better than today, what is it that you are attracting to you? That's your think about point from today. And Julia prediction number 13. Number 13, now we've been very positive about our predictions. There's one thing we like to play the doubles advocate here. That could wreck some of those.
The Doug Collins Podcast
Republicans Are Fighting Each Other More Than They're Fighting Dems
"Do I agree with Kevin McCarthy own everything Kevin McCarthy does? No. Do I believe that Kevin McCarthy wants to be speaker? Yes. Does he is he willing to do most anything to become speaker? And when I say that, I'm not necessarily saying is he willing to do things that are wrong. Kevin McCarthy has been working since really 2009, 2008. To raise money, build a majority and in turn, he becomes speaker. I mean, that's just, that's just been the way it is. Over the past two cycles, the house, we lost the house in 2018. They regained seats in 2020 and they regained the majority in 2022. This is in 30 years. That's what's happened two times in 30 years. Republicans have held the house for 22 years. Democrats have held it for 8, and they did it back to back two year cycles in which Republicans would then take over. Now in those two year cycles, the two year cycles, the Democrats did a lot of damage. ObamaCare, Dodd Frank, a lot of other things that are very hard to get over. But what our problem is becoming now is. That we're fighting each other more than we're fighting against Democrats. We're finding more about procedures and Robert's rules of order than we are about an immigration policy that has left us an open border about an epidemic of drugs that are coming across our border, about an inflation rate that is still double, if not triple, depending on the number for this month, where it was when Joe Biden took office. We're talking about a country and we're not debating policies on energy independence in which we have been made energy deep in it. And we have Joe Biden going all across the world begging to dictators begging to countries that have no human rights ideas. They treat people terribly and it just totalitarian studies and begging them for oil.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"dodd frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"We can't go to the museums and so forth at that. And government workers usually get paid afterwards. Politically speaking, however, it's usually the party that causes the shutdown that pays the political price. However, there have been instances in the past where presidents have been backed into the corner. For example, in 2014, there was a provision inserted to a spending bill that repealed the Dodd Frank swaps push up provision. This gave $40 billion in capital back to the banks. The Republicans signed it, put it into a bill and right before the holidays, they sented the president and said, we're going home. And so president Obama was forced to make a choice, do you shut the government down in favor of this Dodd Frank swaps out provision or do you keep the government working? And a lot of consumers out there we didn't even know what dod Frank is. So when you're talking about things like the SEC climate change rule or market structure rules or forget it, exactly. The average American consumer probably wouldn't care all that much. So everybody knows this tactic is coming. What we're telling our clients, though, is as a result of this, any time you get close to one of these must pass pieces of legislation like a government shutdown or a debt ceiling or even something like the national defense authorization act, pay attention because that is when these smaller sub sector issues get inserted and they either get passed or that you get repealed and so forth. So it's usually about busy time about the week leading up to that deadline. At the same time, the economy could be in rough spot. We're going to hear things about taxes or stimulus, like where's that conversation going to start to kick up over the next few months? There are certain tax issues next year that have to be dealt with because of expiration dates. You'll hear that Neil Harris issues regarding to that. But the real big story as we get into these funding sites is retaining or restricting government spending. It's like the deficit hawks are going to come back next year. And one of my colleagues around town said, the deficit hawks only fly in a divided government. I love that phrase because it's so true. And so because of this divided government, you're going to see deficit hawk saying, we need to cut this. We need to cut that. So every single time we get to a government funding fight, there's going to be a fight over spending and how we can control it. Great stuff. Really appreciate it wonderful analysis, Nathan dean, definitely check into all his stuff as we go through this process. Bloomberg intelligence, a senior government analyst. All right, coming up on the program. We're going to talk about lending against climate future. And also what that actually means. We're listening to Bloomberg intelligence. I'm Bloomberg radio providing in depth research and data on 2000 companies and a
Real Estate Coaching Radio
"dodd frank" Discussed on Real Estate Coaching Radio
"The bottom line is, is that none of it is factored in. There's no craziness that went on with mortgages. The Dodd Frank bill, when they those guys are senators anymore. But they went through the whole financial industry and really put minimum standards for loans and mortgages. And for the most part, and there were some mortgages originated. And I don't think it was that many. The beginning of this year that probably too low of down payments, like 3% down payments. But even those owners are safe because the appreciation year over year has been 19% in nature. And because they had to do things like document their job. Right, exactly. Well, the point being is there's not a lot of these janky loans like they're out there before. So let me just drill down on that just one last point, because Julie and I were coaching agents all over the country when this actually happened. So what happened is a lot of people went into what they didn't know were subprime loans. These ninja loans were subprime loans. And generally speaking, there were short term adjustable loans. A lot of people did interest only, and I've seen some, by the way, I've seen some non conforming jumbo mortgages being offered interest only. Anyway, that aside, so you had a lot of people that interest only short term loans, sometimes two years, three years, 5 years. And as those loans adjusted or as those loans came due to adjust, there was no mortgage available to that borrower that was going to make it so that their payment was going to stay the same. So the loan was adjusting from, say, what an amount to maybe 4% or whatever the hell it was. All the way to maybe significantly more than that. Bottom line, their payments were going through the roof. And at the same time, all the other houses in these neighborhoods were also experiencing the same thing. A lot of the houses were. And these owners were all realizing, well, we don't have the ability to refinance these houses. There's no equity in these houses. And that's what caused people to start abandoning their houses.
Real Estate Coaching Radio
"dodd frank" Discussed on Real Estate Coaching Radio
"The bottom line is, is that none of it is factored in. There's no craziness that went on with mortgages. The Dodd Frank bill, when they those guys are senators anymore. But they went through the whole financial industry and really put minimum standards for loans and mortgages. And for the most part, and there were some mortgages originated. And I don't think it was that many. The beginning of this year that probably too low of down payments, like 3% down payments. But even those owners are safe because the appreciation year over year has been 19% in nature. And because they had to do things like document their job. Right, exactly. Well, the point being is there's not a lot of these janky loans like they're out there before. So let me just drill down on that just one last point, because Julie and I were coaching agents all over the country when this actually happened. So what happened is a lot of people went into what they didn't know were subprime loans. These ninja loans were subprime loans. And generally speaking, there were short term adjustable loans. A lot of people did interest only, and I've seen some, by the way, I've seen some non conforming jumbo mortgages being offered interest only. Anyway, that aside, so you had a lot of people that interest only short term loans, sometimes two years, three years, 5 years. And as those loans adjusted or as those loans came due to adjust, there was no mortgage available to that borrower that was going to make it so that their payment was going to stay the same. So the loan was adjusting from, say, what an amount to maybe 4% or whatever the hell it was. All the way to maybe significantly more than that. Bottom line, their payments were going through the roof. And at the same time, all the other houses in these neighborhoods were also experiencing the same thing. A lot of the houses were. And these owners were all realizing, well, we don't have the ability to refinance these houses. There's no equity in these houses. And that's what caused people to start abandoning their houses.
Soulpods Podcast
"dodd frank" Discussed on Soulpods Podcast
"Fail again, we're going to bail them out again, essentially. I do not know. I'm not privy to that fact. I'm not totally sure if it's the same piece of lenses or legislation or not, but it all happened around the same time. I do. Can you tell me what it is? What it's called one more time. I'll look it up. This right here. But would I be searching to see if that if it said that we'll build them out again? Look up Dodd Frank. Don Frank. How you feeling Frank? Okay, the Dodd, Frank act summary. Here we go. Yeah, sure. Yeah, you keep going. And next up here, drop the veteran homeless rate by 50%. Wire. No other homeless, you didn't do anything for any other homeless anywhere else. Just veterans and even that is paltry. Considering having those numbers to the skyrocketed back up anyway. Yeah. Like Arthur more homeless veterans now than ever. I think so. I think so. And aren't 22 a day committing suicide? I think so. I think so, yeah. Yeah, this is not a thing. This is nothing burger already. Next up, oh, this is a good one. Reversed. Reversed. Bush era torture policies. No, he fucking dinged. Bush era torture policies and expanded Bush era torture policies. Don't you remember him saying we tortured some folks? You're a fucking idiot forever having the goal to type that out. Whoever the hell you are. I didn't take your name down. You're not important enough just based on this list of things. Okay. But seriously, you can not say something like that. You can not say that he reversed torture. No, he didn't. There was a public outcry about it, and they had to stop. And they haven't stopped. Remember, he kept saying he was going to close Guantanamo Bay? Yet, it's still open. Do this day. It sure is. So don't bring that shit here. Apparently, so everything that I'm reading about this, I guess it really, I guess it's spells out really concisely that if a. If a firm basically breaks any of these rules from this Dodd Frank from the Dodd Frank act, and they can prove that they did, they won't be eligible to receive a bailout from the government. However, if they can't prove that they were irresponsible with their funds and through. Essentially risking investing and other kind of dubious ways of making money that this firm goes bankrupt and that's going to cause and they can prove that they did so out of doing shady business, then they won't get a bailout. But if they can do it in a way like, let's say, buying up tons of properties, renovating them and then renting them as single home or predatory loans. Right. Which still exists, even though they're not supposed to because this law was supposed to stop shit like that from happening. Right, but you can't prove stuff when they're all in bed together. Right, right. That's how it works. The one thing it seems like this kind of does, which also just makes it more complicated, but it's just like, this looks like a face kind of thing to me. It's the Volcker Volcker rule. Basically makes it so like banks can't sponsor invest or own proprietary trading through hedge funds. Basically, so it just makes it so like you can't have a bank and run a hedge fund at the same time. Like you can't put money into a hedge fund. So you split up your partnership. So you fire a couple of people. They go over there and you have their business anyways. And so it doesn't matter. All of these are all surface who just like. Weren't going to look any deeper. This is all surface level bullshit that doesn't actually regulate a goddamn thing. No. From what I see what happens when your whole cabinet is picked by a Citibank email. Right. You are already beholden to these banks. That you're not regulating 14 years later and they just figure out how to play the game better. That's it. That's all that they did. They gave them a structure. How to play better. Until GameStop. Yeah. Until GameStop. Next up, $6 and 75 cents for your firm. That's what you saw would offer. Yeah. That's for sure. For sure. See, you got three hedge funds, two banks, and a private investing firm, $4 hard offer. Last one. We can't do better. The multi-billion dollar company, what are you talking about? Yeah, well, we're getting started. We're worth $7. So I want to give you more of our money. Next up here is another good one, I think. I began the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. And I did actually think that this was a good thing. It was long time. I guess that we started talking to Cuba again. And Trump shut that down automatically when he got in. This was one good thing that he definitely was doing for the international community. I thought, trying to bring Cuba back into the sphere. He was like, we could have gotten close to actually ending the embargo on them that's been going on for like 50, 60 years. Yeah. And actually really helping that country rise from the ashes of. What the world did to them. I even had somebody shoot back at me one day. About the embargo, like, oh, well, we're not blocking medicine or food. We're blocking parts for equipment for doctors. If you can't diagnose somebody, you can't prescribe them anything. So it doesn't fucking matter if we're walking the medicine or not. We're blocking the thing that you need to prescribe the medicine. Right. And I mean Fidel Castro wasn't a really a dad dude or anything like that, you know? Did talk to Cubans? I mean, so what's it called? I don't mean not a bad dude in the sense that after he came into power, he did some fucked up things. And I will say that. However, Cuba's government in the way that their country ran before he took over was really, really bad. Yeah, exactly. And he did take part as that revolutionary leader who did step forward and take back their country in that really real way. And because of his ideals, the west refused to work with him. So who the fuck else was he supposed to go to is a burgeoning country in a new leader? The way the way we look at him and it would be like if king George called George Washington like a murderer and a terrorist. Right. Totally. Totally. Of course not realizing the revolution that was actually happening. Right. And I think that I think that he's been villainized a lot, much like che Rivera has been boosted to this level of, oh my God, we got fucking his face on everything, right? When this dude just helped the United States take over his country. Basically all that it came down to, you know? We'd asked him, gave him all the guns and money that he needed. And now he's a socialist hero. But if
Bloomberg Radio New York
"dodd frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Wake of the great financial crisis, when Dodd Frank was passed, it turns out they included provision for a whistleblower provision that where people could go secretly to the SEC and report wrong doing to prevent things like Bernie Madoff. Well, it turns out we may not know as much as we think we know about that program. And one of our great reporters has found it all out for us. He's John Holland, senior investigative reporter for the Bloomberg industry group, John. Thanks so much for being here. Congratulations on this piece on the Bloomberg. Explain this program of what we don't know about it. I think the for all the words we wrote, it comes down to a couple of things. We do know that they have given tens of millions of dollars to people who participated or in some cases initiated the fraud. They were reported. We do know that more than 200 million went to law firms connected to two people who worked for the SEC and helped develop and oversee the program. And we do know that they've done almost nothing to explain what corruption they're finding. What companies are doing the wrongdoing and what benefit this is to the public. Everything is so secretive, there's no way of basically checking the work to make sure that they are operating the best interests of the public. When you're giving away a $1 billion, you don't get to just say trust us. And that is the essence of this. John, are they showing their work to anybody? I mean, Congress have any oversight and they showing it to some people in Congress so they can make sure things are kosher as it were. No, even the annual reports don't include a budget. They don't have the full listing of all the staff. It's very bare bones. Everything they're doing. When they go to court, if you lose your case, you can go to a field squad. Even in those, they refuse to turn over many of the documents that went into their decision. Plaintiffs who have lost cases may have a legitimate case, but because they can not look at their own file, they really hamstrung and trying to question the work of the SEC. And every time they are questioned, they seem to redact more and more information. They used to include the names of some of the companies that they were investigating. That stopped in 2017. They used to put a lot more of their reasoning. Now everything is redacted. Every time they challenge, they make it tougher to oversee the program. Boy, John, as I say, is a great piece of reporting. Congratulations, and
Bloomberg Radio New York
"dodd frank" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Is the cofounder and CEO of Miller Samuel, a real estate appraisal and data analytics firm, some really interesting data points came out. This week, existing home sale prices hit a record of $407,600 in May. And at the same time, home sales declined 3.4% in the face of rising interest rates, is it sort of contradictory that prices are going up even as sales decline, or is that more about the mix of higher end homes and lower in homes? So I think it's more about the lag in closing information versus actual autograph contract activity, if you can think of home price trends at the caboose on the end of the train. I always use this analogy, even though there's no caboose on ends of trains anymore. But really the initial impact you should really for trends you should be looking at sales, heading home sales, contract activity in general. And then new inventory entering the market. That's much more fluid and in front of the prices occur after the dust settles. So for example, we publish monthly research in four different regions of the country and new signed contracts were already beginning to cool back in March. And eventually that leads to an uptick in listing activity which then eventually levels off our cool sales. So I don't think the prices rising is a result of a shift in the mix towards higher property. I think it's really just a lag in the actual data itself. So where are we in this housing cycle? I noticed that more supply is coming online. There was a great chart the other day at calculated risk, showing the most single-family home completion since I think O 7 is like a well over a decade. Are we seeing that many more new homes and existing homes come on the market as supply or is it really just been down so long it looks like up to me? I think the latter so the way to think of it and this is my analogy just using my hometown in Connecticut. My town saw 200 listings pre-pandemic for the prior four or 5 years plus or -20 listings. But it was straddling the 200 threshold. A year after the pandemic, there were 50. Wow. And so you look at and go, wow, that's a real drop. And then the beginning of the year before the rate increases, there were 12. And so that's where I would call the clap. So now, inventory has quadrupled. There's 50. It's still 75% below pre-pandemic levels. I look at that as say, yeah, inventories rising and that's a good thing, but I don't know if people are realized how insanely low inventory became or began. And one of the things that I think is going to be apparent in the coming year or two is that we have probably built too much multi-family rental product right now, it's all sort of responding to the surge in rental prices, but part of that search and rental prices is because the surge or the rising rates are just the fact that lenders are not fast and loose that they are not going to have a banking crisis on the other side of this because lenders are tighter than they were in the decades prior to the housing bubble. And so people that don't qualify. They tip into the rental market, right? I mean, they're not, we don't have we don't have financial engineering like we did in the mortgage world. Circa 2005, 6. What a funny coincidence that mortgage lenders were much looser before the housing crisis. I mean, you know, sometimes these coincidences are just amazing. It's amazing. And since the financial crisis, it's become much harder to get a mortgage, and I'm not talking about all day or subprime. I mean, prime borrowers really had to jump through some hoops in the years after O 8 O 9, is it still that tight or as things normalize it a little bit? So the way to look at it is underwriting standards, mortgage underwriting standards during the housing bubble, you just had to have a pulse or fog your mirror. In the year subsequent, it has the restrictions have deteriorated, but we're still not on par with sort of pre housing bubble era lending standards that lending is generally more conservative and there's less sort of maybe on the margin, but there's really less sort of alternative workarounds for financing. I think it's much more sophisticated. And I think some of the restraints with Dodd Frank have helped to a certain degree, which makes us in a much less vulnerable position. But that has helped create much more tightness in the rental market in general. And I think we have this large response and multi-family rental development being created and I suspect in over the next year or two that that's going to be it's going to be apparent because people, when they look at the rental development being created, there's assumption of, well, more units, lower rent, but just like new home construction, new rental construction SKUs to the upper half of the market. It doesn't address the entire market. So you're creating a lot more rental units, but you're creating not necessarily the right distribution of rental units. And I think that's the challenge for the rental market going forward. I was just going to say just in New York, we report every month the rental rental market and in Manhattan, the median rent was $4000 cracking the 4000 threshold. For the first time in history, average rents are just shy of 5000 a month at 49 75. At 49 75 it's still at all time record. And we're not even to peak leasing season, which is in August. The rental market sort of peaks at the end of the summer. And so there's still a lot of pressure in the rental market going forward over whether or not we have rising inflation. It's very tenuous. And this is not unique to much of the U.S.. Really quite interesting. Coming up, we continue our conversation with Jonathan Miller, CEO and cofounder of real estate appraisal and analytics firm Miller Samuel, discussing the state of real estate appraisal today. I'm Barry Ritz, you're listening to masters in business on Bloomberg radio. Burden LL is it acceptable to go to Mickey D's just for a drink? Of course it is. But good luck leaving with just a drink. It's more than a drink. It's a Mickey D's drink
The Doug Collins Podcast
The Difference Between Nancy Pelosi and AOC
"An interesting point here and I think it might be from the author side of you and from the study side that both of us have a little bit of history. You might have mentioned a Pelosi being as progressive as a say, I don't deserve to disagree with you. There's one big difference in the two. Nancy Pelosi knows how to get things done. AOC does not. She is a YouTube star. And Twitter star. Nancy Pelosi actually knows how, I mean, here's the thing I've said about this and I'll say it now is you turn a little bit to politics. We as Republicans are conservatives in particular have to be willing to do and this is the only area I'll say this in for the most part. Do what Democrats are willing to do. Nancy Pelosi twice now has been willing to give up position and power for policy. She did in 2010 when she was first speaker for ObamaCare, Dodd Frank, those kind of things, which, by the way, are still in existence. She spent 8 years in exile. She's now came back out to the speakership and she's pushing through, you know, the stuff that we've seen, the stimulus package, the infrastructure Bill, and then almost almost got a build back better package, it was disastrous.
Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal
Remembering Paul Volcker
"Here's the thing about Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal Reserve arguably one of the most influential of Fed shares. Who died it yesterday at the age of ninety two? Yeah it's kind of an amazing story that's author and New York Times editorial board member beaming Applebaum on this show about a month or two ago. He used to cover the Fed for the Times. When Paul Volcker I started at the Federal Reserve he worked basically as a human calculator in an office deep inside the Federal Reserve? There Have Bank of New York in the early nineteen fifties and he told his wife one night that he didn't think he had a future at the Fed that as an economist he was always going to be consigned to being essentially. Actually you know A worker bee at this institution that was run by financial market types businessmen. Those even a Iowa Hog farmer there and he didn't think that he had much chance of getting ahead. Suffice it to say Paul Volcker got way ahead at the Federal Reserve. Jimmy Carter picked him to run the Central Bank in nineteen seventy nine with inflation and this is important headed toward almost fifteen percent. I ask Carter about that about the economic and political fallout from picking Volker when I interviewed the former president in two thousand ten so I went looking as I Picked up this book. I went looking for the name. Paul Volcker who You pointed to the Fed in nineteen seventy nine. You don't come across crosses name until page three hundred and forty something and it's really funny because it is dismissed in a sentence. Paul Volcker came in We decided we could work with him. And then the the next day bang you name to defend that was really the one of the most hotly debated things. I did because a lot of my political advisor. Said don't appoint Paul Volcker because he's going to tighten up on everything and you will have no control at all over the Fed anymore. You won't even have communication with him when Paul Volcker came. I was seeing the prospect of enormous inflation rates. And so I agreed with Paul Volcker in conversation that I would not interfere in what he did. I was prepared for him. To tighten up tremendously and drive interest rates and so forth up in order to control rampant in. It's funny actually because a little bit later in the book you basically say in this passage that you dictated at the time Volcker says he's going to have to tighten interest rates. And it's GonNa hurt me politically. I mean. You knew it was coming. I knew it was coming but I was prepared to take it. I thought that I could be reelected in spite of that as it turns out. Of course things didn't work out for President Carter about which I asked Paul Volcker in two thousand twelve if I read the see the recounting of that job interview correctly in this book. You basically said I want independence and I gotta do what I gotTa do. It was obvious why he wanted to see me. But I MR president and if you're thinking of appointing me Germany Federal Reserve. You have to know that I believe in somewhat entitled Monetary Policy and we have been following and my predecessor followed. Yeah you know I the next question I asked the president actually was Did you mind when he raised interest. He's like that and he said Oh no I I thought it was going to be good for the next presidential term. I thought that term was going to be mine. Not Raking No. He asked him why said I cost him the election. There's some people said and he had kind of Ri- smiled and he said well I think there were a few other factors as well after he left the Fed in nineteen eighty seven. Paul Volcker worked on on Wall Street for a while. Got Drafted back into government service every now and then most. Recently as the chairman of President Obama's economic recovery advisory board and as the namesake for the Volcker Carulli. The part of the Dodd Frank Financial Reform Bill that limited some of the kinds of trades. The Big Wall Street banks could make. But really when you think Paul Volcker. It's those years in the late nineteen seventies early nineteen eighties when the Fed pushed short-term interest rates up to a record twenty percent to get inflation back under control twenty percent went today the Fed's current short-term target rate is between one and a half percent and one and three quarters percent and it hasn't over five in more than a decade which makes double digit interest rates hard for most Americans below a certain age to even fathom so marketplace's Amy Scott takes us back in the early nineteen eighties and Owen managed a bank branch Boston to remember telling customers. They'd have to pay twenty one percent interest for a car loan today. The average is just over for four percent. They would get mad at the bank and many times they would just basically say I can't afford that. Oh and went on to become an economist at the Fed and now teaches at Hamilton College. She says those high interest rates had a purpose volcker was trying to slow down demand by making borrowing more expensive give. It made it difficult for people to buy houses by cars Credit card interest rates. Were extremely high. The economy did slowdown slowdown falling into two recessions. In one thousand nine hundred eighty two unemployment topped ten percent in protest homebuilders mailed. Chunks of two by fours is to Volker and members of Congress. Fred Napolitano is former president of the National Association of homebuilders. Just make a point to say this is what we do is is what we build you know with. The interest rate is hurting us. That pain eventually paid off. Robert King is a professor of economics at Boston University. Ultimately once people began to believe that inflation was gonNA come down it came down and interest rates tumbled and the economy recovered and and it's viewed as a major triumph at triumph. Nobody wants to have to repeat. I'm Amy Scott for marketplace. Paul Volcker did yesterday at at the age of ninety
Politics, Policy, Power and Law
Stockbrokers Face New Rules to Prevent Elder Abuse
"I mean, there's long been a debate about whether brokers really are selling clients things that they should be selling them. You don't want to sell an annuity that expires in two years two or that has a. Like a twenty year lifespan to a ninety year old woman, and we've all heard rampant abuses of these things coming going on. You know, you, you get a call or, or someone you know markets, you something, very aggressively, and they give you a great pitch. And then it turns out to be a horrible investment. Now, what's, what sort of controversial about the rules for brokers is that they've long been held to the standard that they only have to make sure the, the, the security is suitable for the client, whereas money, managers, people who run mutual funds people who are registered investment advisers have to put their clients interests ahead of their own. Now, the fact that, you know, a lot of investor advocates are very angry that, there are these two separate codes of conduct. Because they say look customers, don't understand those distinctions those distinctions created by the industry. They're distinctions created by Wall Street. If you tell a seventy year old, you know, you're seventy year old mother or aunt or what have you? That, that her broker doesn't have to put her interest. I you know, she she's going to be at a loss on that. It makes no sense to her. And frankly, there's a lot of logic in that. I mean, I don't think it makes any sense. Okay. So the whole point of this would be to protect the interests of the clients would be to make sure the firms. Don't take take advantage of them, right him. That seems simple enough. Yes. So though, if it's that simple wise, it take hours longer to, to fix it. I mean, a lot of that, you know, I'm sorry to say, has has, you know, the, the, the story behind that is the same reason as lotteries that don't get solved. And that's because of aggressive industry lobbying the rule that the SEC is, is voting on next week, how it, doesn't it doesn't make brokers fiduciaries like fund managers are what it does is you, you have to be much more aggressive in disclosing conflicts that you have, for instance, if a broker is getting paid. By a company to sell it stock or something like that. That's got to be told to the client if they have some internal practice at their firm where look we really want to sell a lot of company XYZ's bonds. So we want you to push those on the client's, perhaps that has to be disclosed, although there is some discretion about what has to be slows and on top of that you have to do a better job just making sure that the client understands what their in store for. Okay. Let me ask you this. We know that it's taken ten years or more to get to this point. What Rubicon did we cross to get to where this is about to become regulation, or have we gotten quite there yet? Well, so this all actually stems from the Dodd Frank act, which I'm sure your listeners are familiar with there, was there was, there was a lot of people Democrats in particular that wanted the Dodd Frank act stipulate. That brokers are fiduciaries. They're held to the same terms as investment advisors. Now there was some vote rolling and and aggressive lobbying. So that was watered down and dodd-frank to the SEC has to study this issue in make determination about whether brokers should be fiduciaries. So ten years later after a lot of debate now the now ruining a little bit, again, the SEC during the Obama administration basically punted on this issue too controversial didn't want to step in the mud. You know, couldn't figure out a way to sort it out in a way that made everyone happy, which, you know, they should have known that you're never gonna make anyone happy. But so the, the Obama, the bomb the White House, instructed the Labor Department to tackle this and the Labor Department deals with pensions, that's sort of their jurisdiction in his face. And they passed a very aggressive rule, then Obama than Obama was gone, and Trump won the election and that rule went down in flames. James and, and the SEC is now fixing that by coming up with a new standard. A new standard that Wall Street is basically content with, because it is an aggressive as the Obama era rule. Okay. Well, then ask you this, and you sort of answered it, but we're going to circle back and clarify it. How much of this is definitely political, because Wall Street folks are pretty generous with campaigns. Yeah. I mean, I, I would say having sat through a lot of hearings on this issue that Democrats are pro tougher standards for, for brokers and Republicans. I've heard a lot of questions especially on the house side, from Republicans, you know, beating up the SEC when it's tried to tackle this issue before going after the fiduciary rule when the Obamas Labor Department was passing it. So, yeah. Like everything this town is pretty political. I mean, it's hard to sort out a lot of times whether lawmakers have opinions because they genuinely hold those opinions or because someone has, you know. Paid them off to have a certain opinion. I will make a judgment on that, just tell you what I've seen it hearings. Okay. Well, let me ask about the reaction that you are seeing investor advocates, the folks that they are trying to protect are they happy with this. Did these rules? Go far enough to not go far enough where what would they like to see happen? They are not happy. Yeah. They are not having this far and they're still unhappy. Well, because they because it's not they, they want a single standard for brokers and investment advisers. They, they repeatedly argued that consumers do not understand these distinctions consumers have no idea that when someone knocks on your door, or phones, you or sometimes even you sign a contract with that. They have a different duty of conduct to you based on what their title is.
Afternoon News with Tom Glasgow and Elisa Jaffe
Fed proposes easing post-crisis rules for big banks
"Trump. The Federal Reserve Board has proposed easing key post-crisis regulations for the country's biggest banks despite concerns from one member that the proposal goes too, far Washington Post financial reporter, Renee Merle is following the story and spoke with komo's Bill O'neil. This proposal would require the big banks to submit their plans for potential closure during an economic crisis. Every four years as opposed to every year. Exactly. What are they chief responses of congress after the financial crisis was the past financial regulation Dodd Frank and those regulations required the big banks to every year by what's known as a living will which basically outlined how the Bank could be closed without causing harm to the economy or to taxpayers, so smaller banks also wouldn't be under such intense scrutiny. Either would they with two hundred and fifty billion in assets are less than two hundred fifty billion doesn't sound like a small Bank. But in the US, it is and those banks would no longer have to file their so called living wills congress. And the regulators decided that being those at that size are no longer as much of a threat to the economy that what is the thinking behind this plan in what to critics have to say about it? Behind the plan is that the financial system in the banks or much healthier now than they were ten years ago. And so the industry doesn't need name level close scrutiny that it did back then. But the critics warned that you know, things can change it a Bank significantly in four years, while a Bank might not change in one over four years of Bank could move aggressively into new risky areas that they could change their capital level levels significantly. And so they could develop serious problems within four years that regulators should be more on top of those potential changes. Now, the proposal, of course, is out there where does all of this go from here. Reserve is likely to vote on this by the end of the year since the the Reserve Board a proposed this most of the members endorsed a proposal is likely to get past. But the public has the next ninety days to comment on the proposal. And so there's chances where it's also be revised to be changed
The Opening Bell
Shares of Disney gain in after-hours trade after earnings beat
"Last weekend. And they were location in Atlanta. And in back of them, you could see because they weren't a streetscape just the scooters going back and forth back. I mean, just dozens of people on scooters. Yeah. No. It's it's it's a very different. It's an interesting and very convenient mode of transportation if you don't have to go to terribly far. But yeah, as far as where do you dock them just drop them wherever and do they have snow tires? So Paul what is the big news this morning from this past week is the highlight in your world is mourning. Well, really surprisingly enough. One of the highlights was the election. I mean, we we kind of expected the election to go as it did. And we didn't expect the markets to react to terribly much to it. But once the election was done we saw the market's rise by two percent. And that was kind of a surprise. And there were certainly winners and losers within the market based upon what many guests would be new legislation or or new constraints if you will on on business, so you had healthcare stacks do very well as we've tight marijuana stocks did very well. Especially after Jeff Sessions resigned. And thinking there's a way forward then for legalize marijuana in the US banking stocks struggled because they saw additional constraints from dodd-frank. So it was kind of a mixed mixed bag from that perspective. But the fact that the market was up two percent was was really kind of a surprise. And then certainly the fed meeting yesterday leaving things unchanged. Those were the two big big highlights for the week to tear this apart a little bit further the healthcare stocks up because of some optimism that there might be some bipartisan way to fix healthcare or is that being optimistic. The word bipartisan is something. I think has disappeared from the lexicon in Washington. But yes, that is the hope that in certainly Trump alluded to it in his conversation press conference afterwards. After the election results that there could be some some way forward to fix healthcare and make it better for for Americans that are on on that plan or looking to get onto that plan. Whether that's the case or not again going through is going to be a tough process. But you know, there there's certainly some optimism that that's going to happen. The Democrats to talking about perhaps reaching across the aisle for an infrastructure plan. That's something that we haven't really seen much of lately. So that would be a positive thing. And we. A lot of the concrete stocks the the construction firms engineering firms they did while they were up three four five percent right after the election on that expectation, but we've we've heard this before as far as infrastructure Bill that was certainly one of the things that Republicans ran on two years ago and not much happened. So when they control both houses they had control nothing really happening there. So. There's a lot of hope and optimism with election that things are gonna happen and get done. And we'll see what happens come January. Right. And so let me play the pacifist here because if you have a split congress to both houses different. There's a good chance. Nothing gets done over the next two years, right? I think it depends upon whether they can put the the partisanship to the side and actually agree on something. And unfortunately, the way we've watched voting develop over the last twenty years or so it has gotten further and further apart as opposed to closer and closer together where they're actually reaching across the aisle, and and some compromises being made Paul hang on. We're gonna continue with Paul Nolte this morning from kingsview asset management. We'll talk more about the fed their meeting this week and the Pat forward and interest rates and some more economic news in portfolio stuff as well. But I at five nineteen it's time to update traffic
Bloomberg Best
US, New York and Dun And Bradstreet discussed on Bloomberg Best
"Let's check this hour's top. Business stories and the markets we're told Dun and Bradstreet will be acquired by an investor group for, one forty five, per share Dun and Bradstreet last traded in New York at one twenty. Two eighty so the offer represents an eighteen percent premium
America's Morning News
Congress just approved a bill to dismantle parts of the Dodd-Frank banking rule
"It has pleaded guilty to stealing nearly five million dollars in taxes from the metropolitan transit authority manhattan which is investigating michael cohen started their investigation in part as a referral from special counsel robert muller's team now the us attorney's office that they're looking to michael collins personal financial dealings and part of that search warrant that was executed by the fbi last month they were looking specifically information relating to colin's taxi medallion business and some of his business partners correspondent curious cornell by a ninety nine vote margin the house has voted to roll back the landmark dodd frank law and send it to president trump for signing the change would free thousands of banks from strict rules to prevent another financial meltdown meantime correspondent tom busby reports the banks are doing fine the nation's banks made a staggering fiftysix billion in profits in just the first three months of this year that's the most ever nets thanks to federal tax cuts and by charging customers higher interest rates but a lot of americans are still struggling the fed says four in ten adults can't even cover an emergency four hundred dollar expense there have been to new small explosive eruptions at the summit of the killer way of volcano in hawaii correspondent stephanie elam geologists warned despite all of this lava and ash this phase of the kilowatt eruption is in its early stage i'm evan haning what does the school bell bring to mind the day's end or the end of school entirely as in kids dropping out at communities in schools.
All News, Traffic and Weather
Us, Trump and Congress discussed on All News, Traffic and Weather
"For the dow josh and this morning they point to a lower open again on wall street in geopolitics have investors on edge is turkey's currency has for steepening crisis there are fears that that's going to spill over into other markets in the us investors waiting for the release of fed minutes this afternoon for clues on the future path of interest rate increases president trump is scored a win in his effort to do a big number the dodd frank act congress has approved legislation that eases rules on small and medium banks bank stocks gained in post market the next iphone will have chips that are smaller faster and more efficient than those in the iphone eight an iphone ten tsmc started mass production of next generation processors for apple that will probably be called a twelve s and p futures down eighteen the dow futures down one hundred eighty eight nasdaq futures down seventy one tenure yield in.