Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 [Debating]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: North Carolina Yankee

[afleitch]

I drafted the original act so I'll need to wade through this before I can comment

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I drafted the original act so I'll need to wade through this before I can comment

Some of it is copy and pasted with a few edits here and there. There are still some things that need tweaking and I felt that it would go quicker with 10 people looking over it then just 1. You had a good start last year the trouble is you focused too much on restoring Glass-Steagal and not enough on everything else. Was that an important step, sure it was, but the rest also needed addressing.

[Badger]

IIRC: The 25% assets in hand requirement and 10-to-1 Debt/Asset ratio is FAR lower than even well before the recent Wall Street crash. While there is certainly strong reason to tighten market games and risk somewhat, changes this drastic would probably the most stringent in modern banking law and would likely bring the economy to an absolute grinding halt.

I'm not exagerating. Think 1931 to include software engineers and code writers and you'll have an idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IIRC: The 25% assets in hand requirement and 10-to-1 Debt/Asset ratio is FAR lower than even well before the recent Wall Street crash. While there is certainly strong reason to tighten market games and risk somewhat, changes this drastic would probably the most stringent in modern banking law and would likely bring the economy to an absolute grinding halt.

I'm not exagerating. Think 1931 to include software engineers and code writers and you'll have an idea.

Perhaps delaying the implementation several years or even gradually reducing the ration to 10-1 in increments. I would be open to any amendments on this issue.

One think I forgot include and I would like to offer as an amendment is the following

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

IIRC: The 25% assets in hand requirement and 10-to-1 Debt/Asset ratio is FAR lower than even well before the recent Wall Street crash. While there is certainly strong reason to tighten market games and risk somewhat, changes this drastic would probably the most stringent in modern banking law and would likely bring the economy to an absolute grinding halt.

I'm not ex agerating. Think 1931 to include software engineers and code writers and you'll have an idea.

Perhaps delaying the implementation several years or even gradually reducing the ration to 10-1 in increments. I would be open to any amendments on this issue.

One think I forgot include and I would like to offer as an amendment is the following

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delaying the implementation isn't the issue, NCY. VASTLY reducing the amount of loans lending institutions can make to the lowest levels in history by far is a bad idea, whether now or in the future.

I think the idea you'retrying to get to--reducing the likelihood of lenders not having sufficient assets to potentially go under, much like we saw this past fall--is good. It's just your numbers are currently WAY off right now.

The GM's input here certainly would help....<hint, hint>

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IIRC: The 25% assets in hand requirement and 10-to-1 Debt/Asset ratio is FAR lower than even well before the recent Wall Street crash. While there is certainly strong reason to tighten market games and risk somewhat, changes this drastic would probably the most stringent in modern banking law and would likely bring the economy to an absolute grinding halt.

I'm not ex agerating. Think 1931 to include software engineers and code writers and you'll have an idea.

Perhaps delaying the implementation several years or even gradually reducing the ration to 10-1 in increments. I would be open to any amendments on this issue.

One think I forgot include and I would like to offer as an amendment is the following

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delaying the implementation isn't the issue, NCY. VASTLY reducing the amount of loans lending institutions can make to the lowest levels in history by far is a bad idea, whether now or in the future.

I think the idea you'retrying to get to--reducing the likelihood of lenders not having sufficient assets to potentially go under, much like we saw this past fall--is good. It's just your numbers are currently WAY off right now.

The GM's input here certainly would help....<hint, hint>

Yes. I was intending to get his input on the last four sections, but ran out of time. He has already seen sections 1 and 2.

The liquid asset requirement might be a little stringent. But as recently as just a few years ago Investment banks were restricted to a 13 to 1 leveraging limit, the so called Bear Stearns rule. I would gradly take out Hedge funds make it so it applies to just Investment banks and then put the ration at 13 to 1, with implementation delayed for 2 to 3 years. Considering as recently as I think 2005 the limit was 13 to 1 I don't see how that would be unreasonable especially with it not taking effect till 2012 or 2013.

[Purple State]

I'm going to need time on this. I am both strapped for time with finals and papers, as well as far from an expert on financial regulation. The last two sections look pretty straightforward and fine.

Just to be as clear as possible, what exactly would you like me to address for Sections 3 and 4?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm going to need time on this. I am both strapped for time with finals and papers, as well as far from an expert on financial regulation. The last two sections look pretty straightforward and fine.

Just to be as clear as possible, what exactly would you like me to address for Sections 3 and 4?

Primarily Badger's concerns that the leveraging limits and asset regulations will lead to economic catastrophe.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Anything further on this, Senators & non-Senators?

[MaxQue]

I'll repeat my question: Does credit unions are entering in the definition of bank in this bill?

[Purple State]

I'm going to need time on this. I am both strapped for time with finals and papers, as well as far from an expert on financial regulation. The last two sections look pretty straightforward and fine.

Just to be as clear as possible, what exactly would you like me to address for Sections 3 and 4?

Primarily Badger's concerns that the leveraging limits and asset regulations will lead to economic catastrophe.

Research by the Office of the GM indicates that leverage limits and the tightening of other regulations in by bill are necessary to rebuild a sound financial system and will prevent investors from avoiding certain restrictions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll repeat my question: Does credit unions are entering in the definition of bank in this bill?

No, I don't think so. But I am open to hearing why they should or should not. Also most of these regulations apply to unregulated or underegulated institutions like Hedge Funds and Investment banks. Traditional Banks are for the most part already heavilly regulated. As such I would assume that Credit unions are as well but I could be wrong and I would interested in hearing a more indepth analysis of the matter from yourself.

[MaxQue]

I'll repeat my question: Does credit unions are entering in the definition of bank in this bill?

No, I don't think so. But I am open to hearing why they should or should not. Also most of these regulations apply to unregulated or underegulated institutions like Hedge Funds and Investment banks. Traditional Banks are for the most part already heavilly regulated. As such I would assume that Credit unions are as well but I could be wrong and I would interested in hearing a more indepth analysis of the matter from yourself.

That was only a question. I unable to give you an indepth analysis of that. Economy is too complex for me, I leave that to other ones, especially for Atlasian details.

Considering than credit are, for the most part, banks whose shareholders are the members of the credit union, i.e. persons who have an account, and by the fact than each member has a vote, no matter how much capital he has in the credit union. They are also have membership restrictions in Atlasia, they only can have members who are living in specific place, who are doing the same job or who are working a the same place. I disagree with those restrictions, but that is not the point.

Credit unions members shouldn't lose all their money if their financial institution collaspes. They deserve as much prtoection than banks customers, they shouldn't be protected because they made a different choice.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I stand with Max on this, on further thought. There is little reason credit unions shouldn't be included under the definition of bank in this bill. A simple insertion in Section 1, Clause A under the definition of "bank" could solve that problem simply.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alright well Yankee isn't here, so I'll just present this simple amendment and see what he says when he can, and if I get no comment for a day, I'll open a vote on the amendment without his imput.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

I would change Section 3(d) to January 1, 2011. A few weeks to comply is a bit too fast.

[MaxQue]

I would change Section 3(d) to January 1, 2011. A few weeks to comply is a bit too fast.

Why not July 1, 2010?

[Purple State]

I would change Section 3(d) to January 1, 2011. A few weeks to comply is a bit too fast.

Why not July 1, 2010?

That would work too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll repeat my question: Does credit unions are entering in the definition of bank in this bill?

No, I don't think so. But I am open to hearing why they should or should not. Also most of these regulations apply to unregulated or underegulated institutions like Hedge Funds and Investment banks. Traditional Banks are for the most part already heavilly regulated. As such I would assume that Credit unions are as well but I could be wrong and I would interested in hearing a more indepth analysis of the matter from yourself.

That was only a question. I unable to give you an indepth analysis of that. Economy is too complex for me, I leave that to other ones, especially for Atlasian details.

Considering than credit are, for the most part, banks whose shareholders are the members of the credit union, i.e. persons who have an account, and by the fact than each member has a vote, no matter how much capital he has in the credit union. They are also have membership restrictions in Atlasia, they only can have members who are living in specific place, who are doing the same job or who are working a the same place. I disagree with those restrictions, but that is not the point.

Credit unions members shouldn't lose all their money if their financial institution collaspes. They deserve as much prtoection than banks customers, they shouldn't be protected because they made a different choice.

I would think they are already protected under the FDIC.

Alright well Yankee isn't here, so I'll just present this simple amendment and see what he says when he can, and if I get no comment for a day, I'll open a vote on the amendment without his imput.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry Marokai, Been busy with RL. I still want to make sure we get a good bill, but I will be honest the chances of me being on that much over the next week, isn't great.

I am a little hesitant about this amendment because the regular banks are already heavilly regulated and some of the regulations are only relevant for the Investment banks and hedge funds. This bill is afterall aimed at filling in the gaps not putting a double cover over what is already dealt with.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bump.


This is still being debated.

I realise I haven't been on much, but we need this legislation and I still think it needs some amending.

[Franzl]

Does any senator have further amendments?

If not, I'll open a final vote soon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Does any senator have further amendments?

If not, I'll open a final vote soon.

There is currently amendments already, is there not? I remember at least two. I will object to the calling of a final vote to make sure we get a good bill. This is a trully pitiful performance and I regret not bringing this to the floor earlier and thus avoiding the post election activity glut. I also regret my inability to work much on this till the Wednesday.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I offer the following Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fritz]

To be completely honest, I really don't understand this stuff    Unless someone presents some reason not to, I'll probably vote in favor.