Better than Dodd-Frank?
#1
I Heard a guy on NPR this morning suggesting that rather than the Dodd-Frank (1200 pages of regulations) a simple solution could replace it. 
He suggested that all banks be required to set aside 20-30% off assets as a "rainy day" fund so that they could make more risky investments in hope of better returns but if it goes sideways they would use the rainy day fund to secure the bank so they are not "too big to fail" and require bailouts. 

He admits the problem with this is that the banks might balk because they won't get a lot of return on that 20-30% of secure money. 

Still...interesting idea. 

Or not?
Reply
#2
That's what most of us "regular people" do if we are lucky enough to be investing. The percentages of safe vs. high risk may be different, but we ALL need to be responsible for our financial successes as well as failures. This requires a safety stash, a lessen that took me a couple of major setbacks to learn. 

These guys don't want anyone telling them what they can or can't do. I can already hear them screaming about how regulations stifling them.
Reply
#3
(02-13-2017, 10:11 AM)Valuesize Wrote: That's what most of us "regular people" do if we are lucky enough to be investing. The percentages of safe vs. high risk may be different, but we ALL need to be responsible for our financial successes as well as failures. This requires a safety stash, a lessen that took me a couple of major setbacks to learn. 

These guys don't want anyone telling them what they can or can't do. I can already hear them screaming about how regulations stifling them.

Well, they ARE screaming about Dodd-Frank and at some 1200 pages it is a tangle of regulations that few seem to really understand. 
There is no doubt Wall Street (and local banks) require oversight from the government...history proves this. 
But, if it can be done with a less complex system, why not? 
The point it reasonable regulation so that we never have to bail out the financial institutions again. 
Simple seems better. IF it works. IF the banks will agree to it. 
God willing and the Creek's don't rise. 


PS: Ya gotta admit history is fun stuff. I capitalized Creek (above) because: 


It mentions Benjamin Hawkins of the late 18th century, who was asked by the US president to go back to Washington. In his reply, he was said to have written, “God willing and the Creek don't rise”. Because he capitalized Creek it's asserted that he was referring to the Creek Indian tribe and not a body of water.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)