Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Proposed Fixes to Dodd-Frank
Highlight Battle Over Regulation

Rodrigo Sermeño
March 30, 2013
Two and a half years after the US introduced the most significant overhaul to financial regulation in a generation, many of the rules have yet to be completed. Meanwhile, regulators, lawmakers, and the private sector continue to be at odds over the finalized regulations.

After the financial crisis of 2008, lawmakers sought to reduce the chances of another economic crisis by overhauling financial rules and creating new regulatory bodies to protect consumers from abusive lending and mortgage practices. After several months of negotiations between the two parties, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in June 2010.

Dodd-Frank, which imposed the most significant reforms to the financial sector since the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, touches almost every aspect of finance. The Act contains sixteen titles, each focusing on a major area of reform, including insurance, derivatives, and proprietary trading. One of the major goals of Dodd-Frank is to subject banks to a slew of regulations along with the possibility of breaking them up if they are deemed "too big to fail." The law also requires that the largest financial firms build up their capital and liquidity buffers, obtain pre-approval for certain acquisitions, and place restrictions on the riskiest financial activities.

After the legislation passed, its supporters suggested that it would take roughly 12 months to finalize the rules. Two years on, those predictions seem overly optimistic.

In a report [1] released last December, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said financial regulators had issued only 48 percent of final rules mandated by Dodd-Frank and have missed deadlines for implementing 89 percent of the act's provisions. The report noted that regulators identified the complex and interconnected nature of the numerous rules as the main reason for the delay.

For the required ban on proprietary trading, for instance, regulators issued draft rules that contained more than 750 questions for public input and produced more than 19,000 comment letters.

Regulators were supposed to finalize the details of the "Volcker Rule," which would ban banks from proprietary trading, by July 2012. The five agencies responsible for the rule, however, have not finished writing it. The GAO said some rules have stalled as regulators wait for other agencies to craft similar regulations, while other rules require coordination among agencies and with international regulations – each one a time-consuming procedure.

Before the release of a finalized version, rules must be proposed and public comments must be read and incorporated. On top of that, regulators must also take into consideration proposed revisions to the law by legislators.

Earlier this month, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a senior member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, introduced two legislative proposals that would make some changes to the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law.

The first bill corrects numerous drafting errors in the Dodd-Frank law, focusing on technical corrections of some inaccuracies and omissions in the law.

"Dodd-Frank supporters have resisted any changes for over two years," said Shelby in a statement. "Certainly we can agree to correct purely technical errors."

Some Democrats, including Sens. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), have said they would be willing to consider some technical fixes to the financial regulation law.

The second bill, titled the Financial Regulatory Responsibility Act of 2013, holds financial regulators accountable for rigorous, consistent economic analysis on every new rule they propose. The financial regulation bill mandates that if a rule's cost outweighs its benefits, regulators cannot push the regulation forward.

Shelby introduced similar versions of the two bills in the previous Congress – one in 2011 and the other one at the end of 2012. Both of the bills did not make it out of the Senate Banking Committee.

As in Shelby's previous attempts in changing Dodd-Frank, the Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of the legislation.

"The use of cost benefit analysis in rulemaking is a significant issue of public policy," the Chamber's R. Bruce Josten wrote in a statement.

"Smart regulation requires a full understanding of the economic consequences in both the proposal and post implementation operation of a rule. Too often, cost-benefit analysis in the realm of financial services rulemaking has been inadequate at best and has failed to provide stakeholders and regulators with a clear understanding of the issues at hand," Josten continued.

Shelby's two legislative proposals aim at clarifying and streamlining the implementation of Dodd-Frank.

"The bottom-line principle of the Financial Regulatory Responsibility Act is unambiguous: If a regulation's costs outweigh its benefits, it should be thrown out. By providing a clear, rigorous, and consistent process for regulators in making that determination, this legislation will eliminate unnecessary burdens on our economy," said Shelby.

Shelby's financial regulation bill would require a cost-benefit analysis by all financial regulators and allow retrospective evaluations of rules after being implemented. This analysis would help the public consider what each rule is intended to accomplish and specify the costs of achieving those objectives.

The bill also aims at reducing the burden of existing regulation through several measures. For instance, it would require agencies to develop plans to modify existing regulations, to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its objectives.

The bill would create a Chief Economist Council consisting of the chief economist of each agency and require them to submit an annual report to Congress on their activities. Finally, the bill would require agencies to incorporate data and analyses provided by the public during the comment period.

Last year, former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner attacked conservatives and the business sector for pushing back on federal regulations, calling it "a determined effort to slow and weaken reforms that are critical to our ability to protect Americans from another crisis."

"The forces working against reform are trying a range of different strategies, including...efforts to use cost-benefit analysis as roadblocks to reform," Geithner said.

Other critics have condemned similar attempts by Republicans as a tactic for watering down the already-delayed legislation.

Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of the state of New York, accused Republicans of wanting to stop any regulations to financial reform.

"These lawmakers are using the responsible-sounding buzzphrase 'cost-benefit' to hammer home their misguided belief that somehow the various rules mandated by Dodd-Frank to regulate the market will cost more than the resulting benefits to the market," said Spitzer.

Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, has criticized [2] the efforts too, saying, "When you hear someone talking about cost-benefit analysis you have to ask: cost to whom, plus benefit to whom."

Tying all loose ends on Dodd-Frank is a major priority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman-nominee Mary Jo White, whose nomination has moved to the full Senate after being approved by a Senate committee last week.

"The SEC needs to get these rules right, but it also needs to get them done," White told the Senate Banking Committee at her confirmation hearing.

Shelby is open to the idea of working together with Democrats on the issue.

"Sen. Shelby would welcome it. This shouldn't be a partisan issue," said Jonathan Graffeo, Shelby's communications director. "Both parties should want to correct objective errors in the law and eliminate regulations that hurt job creation and economic growth more than they help."

This article was originally published at PJMedia.com. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server