No wonder why Republicans fought this.

Now bankers cannot use unlimited leverage, taxpayer backed via bailout trading derivatives.

Now they get treated just like Equity options, with Margin requirements.

Banks could end up having to use capital for productive loans if they want to earn some return on those FDIC insured deposits.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/37944031'




One part of the bill would push much of the buying and selling of derivatives onto clearinghouses, forcing banks to put up collateral against each trade. For JPMorgan, that could tie up billions of dollars that would otherwise have gone toward lending or the bank’s own trading.

A smaller portion of trading in derivatives would take place over exchanges, making prices visible to the public and pushing down prices—and profit margins.

Banks would be required to hold more capital in reserve to cover potential trading losses. In some cases they might also be prohibited from using federally insured bank deposits for risky trading. That would hit JPMorgan hard because of its heavy reliance on customer deposits to finance other businesses.

 

"JPM is impacted by virtually all of the coming regulatory reforms,”

------------

From what I understand JPM was the most conservative and prudent throughout the crisis and events leading up to the crisis.

Seems odd that they would be the target.

--------------

As far as the capital requirements, I'd take a guess that what we are going to find out is there is not enough money for this country to function if people/banks have to have collateral and limit credit to customer deposits,etc. Sounds good on paper... But wtfdik.

 

Just out of curiosity, instead of posting "no wonder why republicans fought this", please detail who you mean when you said republicans fought it.

Names. Because you know what? If you're right (and you usually aren't very accurate with your posts) then it might actually influence me against the republicans if I cannot see a good reason "They" fought it.

I've been following the bill and one of the biggest reasons it was watered down was Dodd and Barney Frank. As usual.

 

I haven't been following the bill but thought I'd ask a question. If the Fed reserve gets more power as a result of this bill, who will oversee the Fed Reserve to enforce any of the provisions?

Seems Greenspan may have derelict in his duty.

You know what I mean?

 

I know exactly what you mean. That's why I was pissed off when Barney insisted the Fed house the consumer protection agency.

 

Thanks for the reply.

Maybe the role between Congress and the Federal Reserve is going to be more cozy (political) in the future. I may have this wrong but do we have horse trading between the two and who owes who what? Just wondering.

p.s. And Obama is going to take credit for whipping WS while he doesn't know who's function is to do what. This could be messed up.

 

Obama already declared it a victory, and it's the biggest joke of a "reform" bill since Glass-Steagall was repealed.

And how could the Fed and Congress become more cozy? I'm not sure that's possible.

Bunch of thieving pricks, the lot of 'em.

 

Byrd is now dead. Can the Repubs filibusterer even if Brown doesn't change his vote? Can WV seat a new Senator quickly?