Financial Regulatory Reform Act (Law'd)

[Badger]

Well this Senate certainly is active. If there are no objections I intend to bend the time limits on this to ensure we have a good bill. I will review it once again and try and propose some amendments. If anybody has any ideas feel free to offer them. I would like to strengthen the consumer protection agency also I would like Hans input on Section 6 and removal of the corporate welfare portion of his bill(note that I left his tax on short selling in place which I beleive was the primary component of his bill anyway.) Still I would like his input.

I concur. This will take some time to go through closely.

[Badger]

From last sessions thread:

Thank you for doing this, Yankee.  This is much clearer.

Overall, good work.  Badger had raised some concerns regarding section 3 that still need to be addressed.  He ascertains that you have the right ideas, but your numbers are off.  I am certainly in no position to determine what the numbers should be.  The GM's response was not helpful, either.  I believe we need to determine specifically what amendments to make to section 3 before moving forward.  Badger, you out there?

I would also like to hear a response from Hans regarding section 6.

I am. FWIW from a mere Senator-elect:

The 10-1 cash to loan ratio proposed isn't as vast a change from current law as I thought; NCY pointed out the standard leveraging limit was recently as low as 13-1, whereas I'd (mis)recalled it being higher. Still, that's a huge drop. A bank with a million in assest could previously extend $13 million in loans and credit, but now is limited to $10 million they can loan. While I agree the standards need tightened, I don't believe a near 25% reduction in available credit is what the economy needs now.

I know my vote probably isn't needed on this proposal as it'll likely be passed or defeated before my swearing in, but is there some room for compromise on these numbers NCY?

RE: Section 5, in what specific ways is the proposed consumer protection agency more limited than the real life proposal? Just as importantly, why?

I would also like to hear from Franzl on Section 6 and review the original law before stating an opinion.

I don't believe these questions were ever resolved.

The question is no longer relevant because the section was miswritten on my part. The 25% refers to the 10% in the above clause. Meaning 2.5% of total assets. It now reas 100% of the those reserve assets. So an investment bank must have 10% of its assets in liquid capital. Its not a huge drop especially when you consider that many of these banks are now bank holding company's and have vast reserves of over a Trillion at the Fed.

I still have questions re: Section 5. Why not make the consumer regulatory watchdog more effective?

[Badger]

From last sessions thread:

Thank you for doing this, Yankee.  This is much clearer.

Overall, good work.  Badger had raised some concerns regarding section 3 that still need to be addressed.  He ascertains that you have the right ideas, but your numbers are off.  I am certainly in no position to determine what the numbers should be.  The GM's response was not helpful, either.  I believe we need to determine specifically what amendments to make to section 3 before moving forward.  Badger, you out there?

I would also like to hear a response from Hans regarding section 6.

I am. FWIW from a mere Senator-elect:

The 10-1 cash to loan ratio proposed isn't as vast a change from current law as I thought; NCY pointed out the standard leveraging limit was recently as low as 13-1, whereas I'd (mis)recalled it being higher. Still, that's a huge drop. A bank with a million in assest could previously extend $13 million in loans and credit, but now is limited to $10 million they can loan. While I agree the standards need tightened, I don't believe a near 25% reduction in available credit is what the economy needs now.

I know my vote probably isn't needed on this proposal as it'll likely be passed or defeated before my swearing in, but is there some room for compromise on these numbers NCY?

RE: Section 5, in what specific ways is the proposed consumer protection agency more limited than the real life proposal? Just as importantly, why?

I would also like to hear from Franzl on Section 6 and review the original law before stating an opinion.

I don't believe these questions were ever resolved.

The question is no longer relevant because the section was miswritten on my part. The 25% refers to the 10% in the above clause. Meaning 2.5% of total assets. It now reas 100% of the those reserve assets. So an investment bank must have 10% of its assets in liquid capital. Its not a huge drop especially when you consider that many of these banks are now bank holding company's and have vast reserves of over a Trillion at the Fed.

I still have questions re: Section 5. Why not make the consumer regulatory watchdog more effective?

As I said before. If you want to strengthen, by all means offer an amendment. The only reason I did not spend more time on that section was what I felt was a sense of urgency to get it done.

Will do.

[Badger]

From last sessions thread:

Thank you for doing this, Yankee.  This is much clearer.

Overall, good work.  Badger had raised some concerns regarding section 3 that still need to be addressed.  He ascertains that you have the right ideas, but your numbers are off.  I am certainly in no position to determine what the numbers should be.  The GM's response was not helpful, either.  I believe we need to determine specifically what amendments to make to section 3 before moving forward.  Badger, you out there?

I would also like to hear a response from Hans regarding section 6.

I am. FWIW from a mere Senator-elect:

The 10-1 cash to loan ratio proposed isn't as vast a change from current law as I thought; NCY pointed out the standard leveraging limit was recently as low as 13-1, whereas I'd (mis)recalled it being higher. Still, that's a huge drop. A bank with a million in assest could previously extend $13 million in loans and credit, but now is limited to $10 million they can loan. While I agree the standards need tightened, I don't believe a near 25% reduction in available credit is what the economy needs now.

I know my vote probably isn't needed on this proposal as it'll likely be passed or defeated before my swearing in, but is there some room for compromise on these numbers NCY?

RE: Section 5, in what specific ways is the proposed consumer protection agency more limited than the real life proposal? Just as importantly, why?

I would also like to hear from Franzl on Section 6 and review the original law before stating an opinion.

I don't believe these questions were ever resolved.

The question is no longer relevant because the section was miswritten on my part. The 25% refers to the 10% in the above clause. Meaning 2.5% of total assets. It now reas 100% of the those reserve assets. So an investment bank must have 10% of its assets in liquid capital. Its not a huge drop especially when you consider that many of these banks are now bank holding company's and have vast reserves of over a Trillion at the Fed.

I still have questions re: Section 5. Why not make the consumer regulatory watchdog more effective?

As I said before. If you want to strengthen, by all means offer an amendment. The only reason I did not spend more time on that section was what I felt was a sense of urgency to get it done.

Will do.

I will take that to mean you are drafting an amendement, correct?
Can you tell us, when you will have this amendment ready? Will it be before you go on your leave of absence?

Iffy whether I can do so before vacation, I'm afraid. Stomach flu laid me and the whole family out the last 2 days, and now I have even more to catch up on at work before leaving. Plus some emergency legislation re: Haiti I'm submitting momentarily...

I wouldn't presume to ask the bill be stalled until my return. If debate is still ongoing then, I'll introduce an amendment at that time. Otherwise I may submit an amendment as separate legislation in the future.

[Badger]

Abstain.