WHY DO AWAY WITH DODD FRANK??

I work in the financial industry and as with many well intention thoughts on helping the average Joe - they tend to go overboard. Many of these over the board regulations are causing very large costs to financial institutions and you know who ultimately gets the costs -- the average joe. This higher costs just gets pushed down to the consumer.

If it now costs your 401k provider more money to produce more reporting that "frank"ly no one reads - --- do you read your prospectus/SAI/annual/semi -- an now quarterly reporting for your 401k, 529 plan, IRA? As my dad said when I showed him what I produced when I first started working - "oh we get those in the mail all the time, we just throw them away."

Well those very difficult reports (getting more and more complex all the time and requiring more frequent reporting) that hardly anyone reads are more expensive to produce - guess what - the expenses of your investment goes up meaning you get less money for your retirement.

But I digress - as what I have read from the portions of the bill that are being done away with - impacts smaller banks allowing them to stay solvent. This could potentially help the credit unions and community banks to stay in business rather than the major closings and merging with larger banks.

That is why to do away with certain parts of the Dodd Frank - basically being a bit more common sense than the knee jerk reactions (to over regulate) that happen in government whenever there is a crisis.

Of course this assumes that the government now does not have another knee jerk reaction in the other direction - whereas they so lessen regulations it becomes a free for all again.

my biggest comcern is that the large institutions will not act to benefit their clients (unless a certain threshold is reached).

What in many cases led to the melt down will be back in the saddle

Currently what is being repealed would only impact small banks.

Hopefully as I said this remains as such so the big institutions don't get greedy again.

The largest issue that happened was the government wanting to help even those with little earnings be homeowners. On the surface it sounds good to help those that may never be in a position to own a home get one. While in reality these people would never be able to pay the mortgage. These mortgage brokers sell thesesub prime mortgages getting awesome commissions ...the financial institutions package them and sell them off for investment firms to sell as bonds and then thee people who cannot pay for them default.

Now we go the opposite way and it can be difficult for even a financially stable small business to get a loan to expand.

Loans will be given to people(businesses) that can pay them back. A sound business move.

What is Dodd-Frank? | CNBC Explains.

Published on Mar 16, 2017

Dodd-Frank is the most comprehensive piece of financial regulation in the U.S. since the Great Depression, but its existence is under threat.

As Linkat has more than ably explained, Dodd-Frank is not being done away with, only trimmed in an attempt to keep smaller lending institutions from going out of business due to the increased costs imposed by the DF morass of nitpicking regulations that do very little, if anything, to protect consumers.

Consumers are hardly in a better place if competitition is diminished and the only lenders are mega-banks. Another "well-intentioned" paving stone in the road to Hell.

so the part that"investment houses must have their clients interests at the center " will remain so as not to possibly trigger another meltdown due to marketing sub-primes?

I can see that making loans easier to close will be a help as the economy has pretty much fully recovered

During the middle of the recovery I needed a new drill rig and our LOC didnt cover the amount so I hadda sell my darling boat , and still hqdda tackle our LOC to meke it all happen. Dam drill rig outfits werent extending credit because they were ina similar bind.

This should stay - and not that I am 100% sure, I thought this was supposed to be the case even prior to Dodd - brokers, insurance agents, financial planners, etc. are licensed and are supposed to have such a legal agreement. (I know many in the industry) - it is no different than a lawyer, doctor, etc. They have a legal obligation to do what is in their clients best interest. I do think there are many more checks and balances in place though than at one time. But my understanding this was always the case as part of their particular licenses. Just that there are shady brokers as you can have in any sort of industry.

This is called the Fiduciary Rule and it wasn't part of Dodd Frank.

An appeals court earlier this year pretty much destroyed it, although states are trying to make their own laws now.

https://www.investopedia.com/news/can-fiduciary-rule-be-saved-0/


I think the closest thing to what you mention that was part of Dodd Frank was the CFPB. That agency is a huge thorn for many businesses and despite myself working for a big bank, I think it's a good agency for America.


What Trump has done to the CFPB is far and away worse than this loosening of *some* of the Dodd Frank rules for smaller banks.

could you elucidate in down-home talk so I get it?
I read Forbes an get these conflicting articles