Trump slashes bank/wall street regulations

>slashing regulation that allows banks and wall street to speculate more

>bringing back the concept of banks being too big to fail

Is there some silver lining to this or is it as bad as it sounds?


abc.net.au/news/2017-02-06/analysts-markets-welcome-donald-trump-bank-regulation-rollback/8243958

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-frank-eliminated-the-dangers-in-the-banking-system/dodd-frank-is-hurting-community-banks
washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/four-years-into-dodd-frank-local-banks-say-this-is-the-year-theyll-feel-the-most-impact/2014/02/07/12c7ca48-877e-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>bringing back the concept of banks being too big to fail

Wat? You don't remember Hussein and trillions of dollars of tax payer money poured on dying banks cause muh too big to fail.

Of course but wasn't part of the regulation after the crash that we wouldn't bail out banks if they fucked up based on their own speculation?

Bump is this draining the swamp or wot mates

It's probably as bad as it sounds. Last I counted he had 4 goldman sachs execs on staff.

It is only bad if you are not an investment banker or a billionaire. You should be happy for your betters.

I dont think this is great. Lack of regs, and fucking kike bankers are what caused 2008.

As well as stupid lending practices to minorities.

treasury secretary is skull & bones yale tard hailing from goldman sachs

meet the new boss, same as the old boss

M-M-MAGA!!

D-D-DRAIN THE S-SWAMP!!

Lol, not even Peña Nieto is that retarded.

mba finance fag here
if youre talking about dodd frank, it was atrocious. you'd think "wow it must be good to put regulations on the banks" but in reality it just did the opposite and only made the big banks bigger because those were the only ones with the huge enterprise resource management systems in place that could cope with the new reporting procedures. or if they didnt have them, they had enough liquid to buy/upgrade existing systems.

the smaller banks all got fucked, hence why you saw so many smaller / local banks shut down.

Would it have been better for the trump administration to put a replacement right away, or is this a smarter move?

>I dont think this is great. Lack of regs, and fucking kike bankers are what caused 2008.

>cause recession
>use recession as an excuse to kill your competitors

>>slashing regulation that allows banks and wall street to speculate more
>>bringing back the concept of banks being too big to fail

Except.. those regulations did nothing to stop the speculation. The banks were already bigger than before the crash anyway.

>Is there some silver lining to this

It was useless regulation with a happy feel-good message that made liberal happy about being hoodwinked.

Now they're upset their ineffective nonsense legislation is removed. All the more fool them.

i havent read the EO so im not sure what he did. some of the accountability in doddfrank was ok, but the regulations, reporting, and redtape was costing millions in new IT systems and lawyers.

related on how the smaller banks got fucked.
nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-frank-eliminated-the-dangers-in-the-banking-system/dodd-frank-is-hurting-community-banks
washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/four-years-into-dodd-frank-local-banks-say-this-is-the-year-theyll-feel-the-most-impact/2014/02/07/12c7ca48-877e-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

this.

CFA here, this guy is right.

aren't there incentives are other various credits for smaller banks to take advantage of in starting up? I believe credit unions can be nonprofits and not pay any income tax.

this surely will only lead to instability in the long run

this surely will only lead to instability in the long run, would this happened under hillary anyways? She was so obviously pro wall street

Well the regulations were useless anyway.
They were leaky, full of holes, and written by wall street so they could continue doing what they were doing but the next time there was a failure they could turn around and say 'but we complied with regulations, bail us out again because this time it's your fault'.


This is either in preparation for real regulation, or to get wall street to have responsibility for its actions in the next big crash.

>Would it have been better for the trump administration to put a replacement right away

Creating legislation that would actually prevent too big to fail is a major task.

Consider that they couldn't do it after the financial crisis and the biggest incentive and mandate since the great depression to do so. Instead we got the fig leaf of Dodd/Frank.

Asking Trump to have a ready alternative is a pretty high order especially when all the useful idiots in the media proclaim that what exists already does what they said it would.

> is this a smarter move?

It would be smarter to have it ready, but not practically possible. With Dodd/Frank gone, Trump now has the 4D chess move to call for an effective legislation that will regulate banks.

If that's what he even wants to do. But it would confuse the hell out of the media.

The point is the political motivator and energy to get it done didn't exist when the fig leaf was still there. Now he's removed it and the outrage can actually be channeled into doing something. Likelihood of success? Low.

This is what I think.

(((They're))) planning to crash the plane. He's already got them locked in the pilot's seat.

credits wouldnt help that much. to be fully compliant, hire the staff, and have new ERM systems, youre looking at like 10million just to get your foot in the door. most smaller banks just consolidated or shut down.

Wallstreet is a criminal organization which is literally stealing from Americans and rigging their system via "deregulation", unfortunately, most people won't understand what this means. Too bad

Repealing Dodd-Frank was retarded and will lead to another crash, people on here are too retarded to understand the implications of it being repealed however and are just happy cause it causes "liberal tears".

Clinton did it and ended up with a bubble that only got bust at the end of Bush's term. If the history holds, it is a smart move and also may prevent him from getting raped by FRS rate hikes.

sitting for level one june, wish me luck senpai

NO NO U SEE ALL THESE LOBBYISTS AND GOLDMAN SACHS SHILLS IS FDTAINING THE SWAMP

HE JUST HE WOULD GIVE GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE PEOPLE