Last quote about Dodd-Frank Act
All quotes about Dodd-Frank Act
Dodd-Frank doesn't say 'thou shall do that,' it says 'the SEC shall write a rule that does that'. I wouldn't ascribe it to motive, efficiency, funding or anything in particular, I think they got dumped with a nearly impossible task and everyone did the best they could.
The history in the last couple years of people challenging regulations had an impact on the timing of rulemaking, because the agencies were trying to make them litigation-proof and wanted to ensure they could sustain a challenge. So they took a lot longer to produce them than they had in the past.
I think it's quite clear from the executive order that what's being done is much more nuanced – it's not going to be 'Let's get rid of all of Dodd-Frank. I think they're going to look holistically and determine what works and what doesn't work.
This many rules take years to write, and some are very complex, and these agencies had other matters on their plates. I don't think for the most part people thought that the rules could possibly be completed by those deadlines.
I think Dodd-Frank is going to stay in its broad architecture. The interpretation of Dodd-Frank by regulators – that may be where we see a different approach by the Trump administration to the previous administration. To a certain extent, a law like Dodd-Frank is established so regulators have a volume control. What you'll see is some change in that volume control, and also watch how markets perform and how regulators manage that performance.
Dodd-Frank broke all its promises. I certainly hope to do my part on Capitol Hill to return us to a healthy economy and unclog the arteries of lending.
Conflicts of interest would resurface, such as when banks traded on their own account while also advising their customers.
In theory it puts U.S. bank profitability at an advantage over European bank profitability - by easing regulations and capital requirements, allowing higher operational leverage for US banks. Dodd-Frank was aimed at protecting banks from themselves. The tighter regulations in Europe weigh on long-term profitability but they also prevent future systemic crises and ultimately create a more stable banking system.
It seems the overall aim of the roll-back is to allow U.S. banks to do more business with fewer capital restrictions. Thanks to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) U.S. banks were able to recover relatively quickly from the crisis and have been in a better competitive position for several years than the Europeans who were left to themselves unless as in the UK, Spain and Portugal full-scale bail-outs were required. A roll-back is going to make the recapitalized U.S. banks even more competitive.
Trump is making it easier for these bankers, for Goldman Sachs, for Chase, to keep robbing ... America. We think this is outrageous that he's ... giving (JPMorgan Chase CEO) Jamie Dimon the power to roll back Dodd-Frank, which was basically set in place to protect us.
Too many small businesses, too many entrepreneurs can't find lending because of the sheer weight, volume and control of Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank clogs the arteries of capitalism in our system. It hurts working people. It hurts consumers. It needs to go.
Just about every regulator in Washington is about to get more business friendly, and these will ultimately be estimate-raising events for so many companies. You should indeed sell what you don't like. But only so you can buy what you do like if we actually get the kind of political sell-off that so many expect but maybe, just maybe, won't happen.
The Dodd-Frank Act is a disastrous policy that's hindering our markets, reducing the availability of credit, and crippling our economy's ability to grow and create jobs.
Wall Street is probably cheering Donald Trump's move to revise the Dodd-Frank Act, which are regulatory rules to inhibit banks and brokers after the 2008 subprime crisis. ... If the Dodd-Frank Act is revised or removed, it will mark a great step toward financial deregulation. A deregulated Wall Street will create a new wave of bullish sentiment in the short term.
Yet since 2008, regulators and policymakers have focused on increased capital for banks and restrictions on risk taking as a general panacea for preventing a future crisis. In general, KBRA believes that modifications to the Dodd-Frank law that lessen the regulatory burden but address the underlying causes of the crisis will be positive for investors.
Today we are signing core principles for regulating the United States' financial system. Doesn't get much bigger than that, right? We expect to cut a lot out of Dodd-Frank. I have friends who can't start businesses because the banks wouldn't let them borrow because of rules and regulations and Dodd-Frank.
The promises have been to simplify Dodd-Frank. It will probably be difficult to repeal it.
We have some of the bankers here. There is nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie [Dimon], so you gonna tell me about it. We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses, they can't borrow money, they just can't get any money because the banks just won't let them borrow.
We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can't borrow money. They just can't get any money, because the banks just won't let them borrow, because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank. So many people who are friends of mine, in big business, they wanted to be on the committee. And I'd call Steve and say, Steve, can we get so-and-so [on the committee]?
The Dodd-Frank Act is a disastrous policy that's hindering our markets, reducing the availability of credit and crippling our economy's ability to grow and create jobs.
Dodd-Frank is a disaster. We're going to be doing a big number on Dodd-Frank. There's nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you're going to tell me about it.
We have to get the United States banking system working again. Today banks do not lend money to companies. Banks are forced to hoard money because they're forced to hoard capital and they can't take any risk. We need to get banks back in the lending business. That's our number one objective.
Regulation has been horrible for big business, but it's been worse for small business. Dodd-Frank is a disaster. We're going to be doing a big number on Dodd-Frank. I think the person I pick will be big, big. I think people are going to love it. I think evangelicals, Christians will love my pick. And will be represented very fairly.
There are elements of Dodd-Frank that clearly need to be curtailed. Parts of the Volcker Rule are unambiguously affecting market liquidity. And the Federal Reserve's own work has demonstrated that.
I'll be very clear about this, I'm not a fan of getting rid of Dodd-Frank, from the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
I think it's time to look at this stuff. Not all the regulation is serving the interest of safety and soundness, and certainly on a cost-benefit analysis it's not. That's not saying we want repeal of all regulation or repeal of Dodd Frank or anything like this.
You get some interest rate hikes, you get Trump potentially rolling back some things with Dodd-Frank, I think the banks are incredibly well positioned.
I'm optimistic that if Congress now says we are going to take a fresh look at bank regulation, we are going to take a fresh look at Dodd Frank, there may be a real opportunity to weigh in and say, let's be much more aggressive on capital requirements.
It's dangerous to consider any effort to modify or repeal Volcker in isolation of a larger package of banking reforms. Even if there is strong support to amend, it may take a lot of time to play out.
Wall Street is salivating at their reversal of fortune. If you get to keep profits and stick taxpayers with the losses, why not?
If that part is repealed from Dodd-Frank, the problem doesn't go away.
Their expectation is that the Dodd-Frank legislation will be changed somehow and a lot of them at this point believe that part of the legislation will be taken out.
He contradicted a previous guest, said the guest didn't know what he was talking about. Look, you can say what you want. There's fake news, real news, there's Reddit, there's sites. Say whatever you want. I don't know. I'm stuck with the facts.
That's why small-business lending is lower.
Here's a dirty little secret about small-business lending: Banks are not venture capitalists.
That's not a Dodd-Frank issue. That's a post-crisis, banks-have-been-fined issue.
I think it's very important that we have reduced the odds that a systemically important firm could fail by requiring higher capital, higher liquidity, by performing stress tests that provide is another way of insuring that the firms we count on to supply credit to households and businesses would be able to go on doing that even in the face of a severely adverse shock.
Like we don't have any economists in America doing research on financial institutions. It's ridiculous.
It's unsecured creditors who generally impose that discipline, and if they know that they're going to go through a bankruptcy and they're going to get wiped out if there's a failure, then guess what? They'll impose the discipline.
Generally speaking, I think we are starting to run out of value in [the financial] space, largely because so much has been discounted particularly around the regulatory environment, which I think is actually going to be very slow to change.
We agreed that while it would be good to repeal Dodd-Frank, it would be difficult politically.
We're not asking for wholesale throwing out of Dodd-Frank. It's always been rational to look at major legislation and, you know, open it up, take a look at it, re-calibrate it, change it a little bit.
One of the most interesting things that I'm seeing of the Trump picks is such a heavy business and financial focus. I can't help but feel like this is going to throw a lot of policy weight and details back to Congress, because these are not people who have a lot of experience drafting legislation. So then, that makes me ask, what do Republicans in the House think? And there, I think they'd probably be up for repealing Dodd-Frank.
The most urgent need we have is to throw a life preserver to community banks that capitalize our small businesses.
I think one of the good things about both Wilbur and I, we have actually been bankers. We've been in the business of regional banking, and we understand what it means to make loans.
You don't need to roll back Dodd-Frank to make the bank stocks work.
Both of these gentlemen are extremely talented at turnarounds.
The rebirth of regional banking is actually quite strong, and to induce banks to be making loans to small and medium-sized businesses is actually a growth area. I think anytime you can get more liquidity into the marketplace for growing businesses, [it] helps economic growth.
We are about to enter a very interesting phase in the markets. We're definitely going to see Fed raising rates, we have a lot of debt overhang, we've got to figure a way out of the zero interest rate policy that we're in. To me, these are two individuals who have a lot of savviness in how to manage that, and I'm happy to see them in the spots that they're in.
So we want to strip back parts of Dodd-Frank that prevent banks from lending, and that will be the number one priority on the regulatory side.
Even for rules that have been finalized, there is room to change things.
We talked about how to get rapid economic growth. President-elect Trump has a real deep commitment and belief that accelerating economic growth is the cure for what he considers the problem with the middle class in America and that's really what his focus is.
I'm in a very nice place in my career and I hadn't planned to take on such a big job.
What we want to do is to incentivize them to objectively look at the risk-returns and they'll be better off taking a reasonable amount of risk over the long term.
First, costs would go down because all regulatory costs pass, in one way or the other, to consumers. Credit would be available, particularly in the lower end of the marketplace, which has been hurt by the lack of availability of credit. We can reduce deposit insurance significantly and 95 percent of the consumers in this country have less than $50,000 in the bank.
In terms of eliminating the Federal Reserve, that's something I'd like to do in theory, but I don't think it's doable in practice. What I really want to do with the Federal Reserve is control it. You really have an incredibly powerful organization that there's no self-discipline for and it's had a big impact, I believe, on our economic volatility over the years.
Budget rules restrict what [Trump] can do.
They're going to try and pass two pieces of legislation before Trump is even president. First, the Keystone Pipeline gets approved. And two, to repeal Obamacare without replacing it so that Donald Trump can sign those bills immediately becoming president.
As soon as Trump gets here, Cabinet gets settled, you're going to see all the discussion moving to tax reform, infrastructure, fiscal policy and defense spending.
Financials is a good place to be, but don't think that Dodd-Frank will be repealed.
One of the dangers of dismantling regulation is that it will be costly and disruptive. By and large they've gotten themselves into shape and they're not looking to get out of shape.
Even if Volcker doesn't go away, there are still questions about how tough the enforcement would be. Banks are deciding they may take the foot off the gas pedal now and just see what happens.
There is a need for what big banks and Wall Street do for the economy. The new supposed leaders of the Trump administration appear to understand this. Therefore, it is highly likely that banking regulations will be meaningfully eased in the next year. I still think this cannot be done by revoking Dodd Frank. It must occur at the Fed.
If you come at it from a common sense approach, there is a proverbial low-hanging fruit at the top of that list. Everybody from (Fed Chair) Janet Yellen on down has said there is a concern that those smaller financial companies have had a difficult time competing in the wake of the new law's enactment.
It doesn't look good for Donald Trump the populist to be essentially disemboweling what was the principal regulatory response to the financial crisis. So the question really is, if you're looking to let's say, amend Dodd-Frank, what are your goals and what do you do? You have to begin by acknowledging that there probably are very few lawmakers who thoroughly understand the law in the first place.
I think it would be a big mistake to go back to the pre-financial crisis set of regulations that we had in place. That said, is Dodd-Frank perfect? I would be very hesitant to say that. So if there are aspects of Dodd-Frank that could be improved, it would be completely reasonable for Congress to take that on, and it's obviously up to them.
I wouldn't expect we're going to see the entire repeal of Dodd-Frank, but we could certainly see some changes that are positive for the financial services sector.
I would strongly urge you to respect the results of last week's election and resist the temptation to finalize any regulations, including Dodd-Frank ... regulations.
I remain troubled that the Fed may have added items to the Stress Test that were conceived, negotiated and approved in closed-door international meetings.
Even if they were to repeal Dodd-Frank tomorrow, for the banks to get back in motion … they've spent the last eight years growing out their compliance departments. They're not growing out their proprietary trading departments.
It's nice to be mentioned, and I certainly want to help our new president make America stronger and more prosperous, but serving in his Cabinet is not something I've indicated an interest in and it's not something I am pursuing. The president-elect has said that repealing the Dodd-Frank Act is among his top priorities, and I look forward to working as his ally in the House to do just that.
I don't want to comment on current monetary policy, but I'd love to see Dodd-Frank disappear. I think it was a disastrous mistake.
They will do whatever they want to do. Say goodbye to Dodd-Frank. Say goodbye to the fiduciary rule at DOL.
A blanket repeal of Dodd-Frank would not be good because some of the regulations are good for managing risks that lead to the 2008–2009 financial crisis.
We've got to get our capital markets working, and unfortunately, Dodd-Frank has made capital less available and less expensive. It puts government bureaucrats between consumers and their credit cards and their mortgages.
The banks and other financial institutions did things pre-crisis that needed a response. And they got a response in the form of Dodd-Frank. But now we're six or seven years removed from that, and we want to strike the right balance between making sure things are properly regulated, but not going so far that you stifle capital formation and deployment.
We're really seeing a lot more discussion about things like reforming or rejecting the Dodd-Frank [financial reform] bill. We've seen a lot of discussion about easing regulatory burden on the industry which was put on it by Dodd-Frank and by the CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau].
The contention seems to be that some of the rules established in Dodd-Frank and the CFPB make it difficult for qualified borrowers to get a loan and make it difficult for lenders to justify making loans because of the regulatory and litigation risk.
We've got to keep regulation on abusive practices and on Wall Street, so that Wall Street doesn't tank Main Street again. These are their ideas, but they're our ideas too: We put Dodd-Frank in place for a reason, and we want to strengthen it, not get rid of or weaken it.
There was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because, for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
The ruling makes a small, technical tweak to Dodd-Frank and does not question the legality of any other past, present, or future actions of the CFPB.
I would imagine she'll get some questions on the outlook and policy, and I would imagine she'll echo word for word what she said in her press conference. In terms of regulation and supervision, there's obviously still stuff up in the air in terms of Basel lll and Dodd-Frank, but I would guess her comments will be very general.
You pay us to do as much as we possibly can whether it works or not. The only way you are going to get budgetary predictability by the payers, both private and public, is to get rid of fee-for-service medicine and do all this . . . at a capitated basis.
This is predatory behavior by a particular drug company, and there's really not an excuse for it. I don't see the other pharmaceutical companies doing this kind of predatory behavior and these kinds of outrageous price increases.
Our acquisition of Javelin underlines our commitment to the FX market and is an acceleration of our FX product rollout plans.
There's really this pervasive anti-Wall Street, anti-business view in both parties. I think there's a cloud over Wall Street that's not going to dissipate anytime soon. The problem with Trump is just the level of uncertainty. With Hillary, I think she's more practical. She's not going to try to put Glass-Steagall back together again. She's not going to try to dismantle Dodd Frank.
The Republican in Congress seem to be going in one direction to solve what they perceive to be a major problem – Dodd-Frank. And the Republicans on the National Committee seem to be going in a different direction which is a direction the Democrats agree with.
We are supporting the small banks and Main Street. We talk about legislation that affects, you know, some of the mistakes made in repealing Glass-Steagall and some of the mistakes made in imposing Dodd-Frank. The platform reflects those things.
The way I see this is that there is a very big and important home here. if Trump wins the White House and Republicans continue to control Congress, President Obama's health insurance and financial regulations such as the Dodd-Frank act will be repealed.
Here's something we both agree with, and that is Dodd-Frank is impeding economic growth. I think he well received the message. I think he was interested in the policy.
While most Republicans in Congress are debating not whether to run away from Trump - but how far and how fast - Congressman Hensarling is sprinting toward Trump Tower.
Those on the left who gave us Dodd-Frank believe in the principle that human nature is self-destructive and that people – except themselves, of course – are fundamentally ignorant.
Not unlike many Republicans, I've certainly had my disagreements with Donald Trump. But at least one thing is I know – he's working on a very solid tax plan and he also realizes that Dodd-Frank has hurt working Americans and that it's broken its promises.
The notion that you would vote for anybody that would now allow them to go back to doing the same stuff that almost broke our economy's back makes no sense.
Donald Trump is worried about helping poor little Wall Street? Let me find the world's smallest violin to play a sad, sad song. Can Donald Trump even name three things that Dodd-Frank does? Seriously, someone should ask him.
Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. That's why he passed Obamacare and the stimulus and Dodd-Frank and the deal with Iran. It is a systematic effort to change America.
One of the reasons people are so unhappy with Washington is they get a sense that there are special rules that apply. Wall Street gets special exemptions, the big banks get special exemptions, Dodd-Frank sets up rules that hammer small banks, hammer community banks, hammer the little guys. But what happens to the big guys? They keep getting bigger.