long impasse between the SEC and banks regarding the appropriate interpretation
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
The FRB and the SEC approved Regulation R ("Final Regulation R") implementing the bank broker push out provisions under Title II of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ("GLBA"). A bank or thrift (collectively, a "bank") must start complying with Regulation R on the first day of the bank’s fiscal year starting after September 30, 2008, which for many banks will be January 1, 2009.
Regulation R was proposed by the FRB and the SEC jointly in an effort to resolve a years-long impasse between the SEC and banks regarding the appropriate interpretation of 11 statutory exceptions in the GLBA. The exceptions were intended to preserve bank activity after Congress repealed the blanket bank exception from broker regulation. The repeal was long-sought by the SEC in order to provide for functional SEC regulation of bank broker activities in response to banks’ entry into broader financial services securities activities, including the retail sale of mutual funds, in the 1980s.
To provide greater certainty to banks, the SEC made several attempts to issue regulations (proposed Regulation B in 2004 and the Bank Broker-Dealer Interim Final Rules in 2001) – these attempts were criticized by banks, banking agencies, and some members of Congress. Last fall, in adopting the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, Congress required the SEC to withdraw its rules and issue new rules jointly with the FRB in consultation with the other federal banking agencies.
Final Regulation R generally reflects proposed Regulation R, but also addresses banks’ concerns regarding legal and enforcement risk and contains further easing of bank regulatory burden in discrete areas, notably the "chiefly compensated" income test for exempted trust/fiduciary activity, the types of referral compensation permitted under the networking exemption, the scope of exempted custody activity, sweeps of deposit funds collected by another bank, and exempted transactions in variable insurance products effected with an insurance company.
Significant changes made by Regulation R, in comparison with previous proposals, are summarized below.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x...e+Regulation+R
Regulation R was proposed by the FRB and the SEC jointly in an effort to resolve a years-long impasse between the SEC and banks regarding the appropriate interpretation of 11 statutory exceptions in the GLBA. The exceptions were intended to preserve bank activity after Congress repealed the blanket bank exception from broker regulation. The repeal was long-sought by the SEC in order to provide for functional SEC regulation of bank broker activities in response to banks’ entry into broader financial services securities activities, including the retail sale of mutual funds, in the 1980s.
To provide greater certainty to banks, the SEC made several attempts to issue regulations (proposed Regulation B in 2004 and the Bank Broker-Dealer Interim Final Rules in 2001) – these attempts were criticized by banks, banking agencies, and some members of Congress. Last fall, in adopting the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, Congress required the SEC to withdraw its rules and issue new rules jointly with the FRB in consultation with the other federal banking agencies.
Final Regulation R generally reflects proposed Regulation R, but also addresses banks’ concerns regarding legal and enforcement risk and contains further easing of bank regulatory burden in discrete areas, notably the "chiefly compensated" income test for exempted trust/fiduciary activity, the types of referral compensation permitted under the networking exemption, the scope of exempted custody activity, sweeps of deposit funds collected by another bank, and exempted transactions in variable insurance products effected with an insurance company.
Significant changes made by Regulation R, in comparison with previous proposals, are summarized below.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x...e+Regulation+R
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2006/spch092106cc.htm
"Congress recognized how difficult this whole process could prove to be for some banks, and included an 18-month implementation deadline. That was supposed to end in May 2001 — more than five years ago"
That is Cox himself
so dungheap was right
did you apologise?
"Congress recognized how difficult this whole process could prove to be for some banks, and included an 18-month implementation deadline. That was supposed to end in May 2001 — more than five years ago"
That is Cox himself
so dungheap was right
did you apologise?
evince
Truthmatters
"But the "broker" exclusions proved far more difficult. In order to continue to seek input from all interested parties, the Commission extended the blanket exception from the definition of broker, and has continued to do so to the present time. "
cox confirms there were no rules as of sept 2006
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2006/spch092106cc.htm
cox confirms there were no rules as of sept 2006
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2006/spch092106cc.htm
evince
Truthmatters
"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.
"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future."
he quotes Phil Gramm
"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future."
he quotes Phil Gramm
evince
Truthmatters
Seven years after passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, we still don't have the bank broker exceptions we need to implement the legislation.
I'm committed to completing that important task. Congress intended that the SEC write rules to implement this legislation. (I can say that with some authority, because I was a member of the House-Senate Conference Committee that wrote the final version of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.)
The rules are important because Congress fully understood that reasonable exemptions would be necessary to promote competition and efficiency, and to protect investors — the very purposes of the legislation in the first place.
I guess you don't agree with cox?
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2006/spch092106cc.htm
I'm committed to completing that important task. Congress intended that the SEC write rules to implement this legislation. (I can say that with some authority, because I was a member of the House-Senate Conference Committee that wrote the final version of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.)
The rules are important because Congress fully understood that reasonable exemptions would be necessary to promote competition and efficiency, and to protect investors — the very purposes of the legislation in the first place.
I guess you don't agree with cox?
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2006/spch092106cc.htm