The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
5 Signs You're Getting Robbed at the Hospital
"The party is over. Never again." These are the words of Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding the bill to regulate financial markets that passed the House of Representatives on 223 to 203 vote.
In broad terms, these are the provisions of the House bill:
- Large financial companies would be hit with billions of dollars in fees and would see new restrictions on their operations.
- The Federal Reserve's powers to write consumer-protection laws would be stripped.
- For the first time, an arm of Congress would audit the Fed's monetary policy decisions.
- Shareholders would be given a vote on executive compensation.
- A new Consumer Protection Agency would be formed.
- The government would have the power to break up even healthy financial companies if they pose a threat to the financial system.
- The FDIC would collect fees from large institutions to create a huge fund to pay for future bailouts.
The Senate now has to take up the issue, next year. The Senate has differing views on financial regulation, which will require debate.
Republicans oppose any bill that would regulate the private sector.
As next year unfolds, financial regulation will take center stage. Some of the issues are not altogether understood by the public and perhaps will not receive the publicity that the health care bill had.
One thing is sure. The American people are outraged at financial executives and that fury will not go away. Some regulatory reform is almost certain to be enacted.
Do you believe the House bill is strong enough?
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-12-2009 @ 10:10AM
russ.binder said...
No, the regulations alone aren't enough. Spell out the level of enforcement and oversight, and the swiftness of the corrections once something contrary to the regulations has been discovered. Have better rules, sure, but let's see the referees of the financial world really throw the flags in a timely manner and swiftly slam the penalties on those that break the rules. That Madoff got so far, for so long, is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence that the SEC can't - for whatever reason - do what is expected of them.
12-12-2009 @ 11:30AM
realamerican said...
I guess I disagree with the above guy's comment. If he wants the Government to live his life for him, then so be it. However, The Lower House of representatives has gotten just too damn liberal. This borders on a Marxist- Communistic venue, along with several other undesirable ideological ways of life.
Grabbing monies from large Financial Institutions while at the same time stripping the powers of the Fed and placing the monies and power in the hands of an uncontrolled bunch of hoodlums somehow does not sound too intelligent to me. This is the second beginning of the end for the United States of America.
12-12-2009 @ 1:00PM
Mitch said...
These guys won't get it until the Feds are able to shut their houses down, fire all their employees, seize and redistribute thier assets. Since that won't happen, the next best thing is for the public to demand their brokers keep their investment money out of the failed houses hands. If they refuse or ingnor your wishes, withdraw and find a broker who will.
12-13-2009 @ 2:50AM
aliabassi1 said...
I just don't get it, if large financial companies would be hit with billions of dollars in fees and would see new restrictions on their operations. With new regulators and regulations that will "end the party" why would they need to fund a bailout fund? If they are going to be heavily regulated.... wont the regulators have foresight?
A new Consumer Protection Agency would be formed? For what? These banks supposedly can't hurt the little guy with so much regulations.
I would prefer nationalization before over regulation. Nationalization would cost cheaper and achieve the exact same thing ---> Nothing Good