Trump's bank deregulation

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Trumpf's bank deregulation

How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

Anyone who doubted how detrimental Trump administration policies would be should analyze the damage unfolding for those trampled by Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. On May 24, 2018, Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Reform Act”). This was a regulatory relief bill for regional and community bill, which bank lobbyists and numerous politicians had fought hard for.

The argument at the time was that many of the provisions in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) were ‘one size fits all.’ Despite any proof, those lobbying for the EGRRCPA argued that capital, liquidity, and stress requirements for regional and community banks would be detrimental to the economy. In a number of Forbes columns, I argued that the weakening of bank regulations under Trump would be the seeds for the next financial crisis.

Thanks to Trump and his supporters this all changed. Some of the key changes that EGRRCPA made were:

Increasing the asset threshold for “systemically important financial institutions” or, “SIFIs,” from $50 billion to $250 billion.

Immediately exempting bank holding companies with less than $100 billion in assets from enhanced prudential standards imposed on SIFIs under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (including but not limited to resolution planning and enhanced liquidity and risk management requirements).

Exempting bank holding companies with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets from the enhanced prudential standards.

Limiting stress testing conducted by the Federal Reserve to banks and bank holding companies with $100 billion or more in assets.

Under Dodd-Frank’s Title I, any bank in the U.S. with an asset size of $50 billion or more could be designated as a domestically systemically important bank (D-SIB). This would then allow national bank regulators like the Federal Reserve to impose what are called enhanced prudential standards

Continued
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrar...-silicon-valley-banks-demise/?sh=4fb16df93432
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

Anyone who doubted how detrimental Trump administration policies would be should analyze the damage unfolding for those trampled by Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. On May 24, 2018, Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Reform Act”). This was a regulatory relief bill for regional and community bill, which bank lobbyists and numerous politicians had fought hard for.

The argument at the time was that many of the provisions in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) were ‘one size fits all.’ Despite any proof, those lobbying for the EGRRCPA argued that capital, liquidity, and stress requirements for regional and community banks would be detrimental to the economy. In a number of Forbes columns, I argued that the weakening of bank regulations under Trump would be the seeds for the next financial crisis.

Thanks to Trump and his supporters this all changed. Some of the key changes that EGRRCPA made were:

Increasing the asset threshold for “systemically important financial institutions” or, “SIFIs,” from $50 billion to $250 billion.

Immediately exempting bank holding companies with less than $100 billion in assets from enhanced prudential standards imposed on SIFIs under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (including but not limited to resolution planning and enhanced liquidity and risk management requirements).

Exempting bank holding companies with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets from the enhanced prudential standards.

Limiting stress testing conducted by the Federal Reserve to banks and bank holding companies with $100 billion or more in assets.

Under Dodd-Frank’s Title I, any bank in the U.S. with an asset size of $50 billion or more could be designated as a domestically systemically important bank (D-SIB). This would then allow national bank regulators like the Federal Reserve to impose what are called enhanced prudential standards

Continued
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrar...-silicon-valley-banks-demise/?sh=4fb16df93432
Click to expand...

These leftist hacks can't get much dumber Co-sponsors of this act:

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Heitkamp, Heidi [D-ND]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT]* 11/16/2017
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]* 11/16/2017
Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] 12/06/2017
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 12/06/2017
Sen. Jones, Doug [D-AL] 02/15/2018

The collapse had "nothing to do with Trump or Dodd-Frank" and more to do with an "unusual confluence of events."

The bank "dealt almost exclusively with tech firms which usually rely on continuously rolling over large debts" which means that the firms are "not paying off their debt but simply taking out new debt to pay off the old."

"Second, SVB put a disproportionate amount of its cash into long-term bonds. Ordinarily, that’s not a bad strategy, but it’s unwise when interest rates are zero because those rates must rise eventually,"
"When rates rise, bond prices fall. This is because an investor with the choice to buy an existing bond at a low rate or a new bond at a high rate will choose the new bond since it’s a better return on investment. If you want to sell the old bond with its lower interest rate, you must be willing to sell it at a discount; otherwise, no one will buy it."

SVB's undiversified clientele meant "too many depositors needed cash all at once" forcing the liquidation of bonds that had lost value and a "death spiral" quickly ensued.

"SVB had to sell its bonds at a loss to raise cash. Limited transactions like this would not have been catastrophic, and in fact happen regularly in the financial sector on a small scale."

"SVB was a case of mismanagement that was made possible by the unrealistically low rates from the Federal Reserve,"
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...ley-bank-collapse-citing-2018-bipartisan-bill

In other words, blaming Trump is lame and stupid. Like all of the dishonest arguments Democrats and their media enablers come up with.
 
BartenderElite said:
MAGA's always think it's so cool when a Republican promises to get rid of all of those pesky regulations.
Click to expand...

Once again you illustrate what a mentally challenged, uneducated dumbass you are. It's sad that you don't even do a modicum of research for the facts before you rant like an uneducated lunatic.
 
This Bank was clearly a Federal Reserve Bank Member, and questions must now be answered as to why the Fed allowed the bank to assume so much risk before the warning flags came out.

The easing of regulations may very well be the reason why!

But, without an investigation, WE DO NOT KNOW POODILLY SQUAT HERE.

One thing is for sure, a simple Tweet did cause a run on the bank that caused the bank failure. That- We do know!

1st amendment right?

In other words, someone's 1st amendment right did cause a bank failure! What's next?
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
The overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats voted against diluting Dodds- Frank

"Sixteen moderate Senate Democrats helped Republicans pass the bill"
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/14/senate-passes-bill-scaling-back-dodd-frank-463825
Click to expand...

And an overwhelming majority of House Democrats also voted against rolling back Dodds-Frank.


"The House voted Tuesday to pass the biggest rollback of financial regulations since the global financial crisis. The margin was 258-159, with 33 Democrats supporting the legislation"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...-bank-bill-rolling-back-dodd-frank-rules.html
 
BartenderElite said:
MAGA's always think it's so cool when a Republican promises to get rid of all of those pesky regulations.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out continuously, regulations are what protect the people from the wealthy and corporations. The Repubs convince people that regulations are bad. Sure thing righyts, just trust the wealthy and corporations to do the right thing.
 
Cypress said:
How Trump’s Deregulation Sowed The Seeds For Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

Anyone who doubted how detrimental Trump administration policies would be should analyze the damage unfolding for those trampled by Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. On May 24, 2018, Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Reform Act”). This was a regulatory relief bill for regional and community bill, which bank lobbyists and numerous politicians had fought hard for.

The argument at the time was that many of the provisions in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) were ‘one size fits all.’ Despite any proof, those lobbying for the EGRRCPA argued that capital, liquidity, and stress requirements for regional and community banks would be detrimental to the economy. In a number of Forbes columns, I argued that the weakening of bank regulations under Trump would be the seeds for the next financial crisis.

Thanks to Trump and his supporters this all changed. Some of the key changes that EGRRCPA made were:

Increasing the asset threshold for “systemically important financial institutions” or, “SIFIs,” from $50 billion to $250 billion.

Immediately exempting bank holding companies with less than $100 billion in assets from enhanced prudential standards imposed on SIFIs under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (including but not limited to resolution planning and enhanced liquidity and risk management requirements).

Exempting bank holding companies with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets from the enhanced prudential standards.

Limiting stress testing conducted by the Federal Reserve to banks and bank holding companies with $100 billion or more in assets.

Under Dodd-Frank’s Title I, any bank in the U.S. with an asset size of $50 billion or more could be designated as a domestically systemically important bank (D-SIB). This would then allow national bank regulators like the Federal Reserve to impose what are called enhanced prudential standards

Continued
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrar...-silicon-valley-banks-demise/?sh=4fb16df93432
Click to expand...

Oh dear. You might want to look at this link. The board of directors for Signature Bank. Ah.....Barney Frank himself has been on the board since 2015. You poor dumb bastard. https://investor.signatureny.com/governance/board-of-directors/default.aspx
 
BartenderElite said:
MAGA's always think it's so cool when a Republican promises to get rid of all of those pesky regulations.
Click to expand...

Who was SVB's Risk Assessment Manager? You know, the person who is in charge of keeping the bank stable.

Woke Head of ‘Risk Assessment’ at SVB ‘Prioritized’ LGBT Initiatives — Before Bank Lost Billions and Collapsed

Jay Ersapah – who describes herself as a ‘queer person of color from a working-class background’ – organized a host of LGBTQ initiatives including a month-long Pride campaign and implemented ‘safe space’ catch-ups for staff.

In a corporate video published just nine months ago, she said she ‘could not be prouder’ to work for SVB serving ‘underrepresented entrepreneurs.’

It comes after the firm became the largest bank to collapse since the 2008 financial crisis – disclosing a $1.8 billion loss in its finances.

The spectacular fall from grace puts Ersapah under scrutiny as ‘Head of Financial Risk Management and Model Risk’ for the company’s presence in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Ersapah was based at the bank’s London office.

Last year professional network Outstanding listed Ersapah as a top 100 LGTBQ Future Leader.

Get woke, go broke.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Is there anything that isn't Trump's fault in the eyes of the Democrats and Left? :thinking:
Click to expand...

And is there anything that the Regime will not lie about?

The Dodd-Frank Act passed in 2010 was enacted to regulate financial markets in such a way as to prevent the economic meltdown that happened in 2007/2008 from ever happening again. The Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 attempted to roll back many of the regulations put in place by Dodd-Frank. Proponents of the 2018 act believed Dodd-Frank went too far in regulating financial markets and artificially placed an undue burden on the ability of the market to function properly.Opponents of the 2018 Act believed the regulations implemented by Dodd-Frank were necessary to prevent another financial debacle like 2007/2008. A survey of financial market managers before the Relief Act and after the Relief Act compared perceptions toreality. The results found that reality did not meet expectations. Financial market managers were asked before the Relief Act, “How will your day-to-day activities change if Dodd-Frank is repealed?” The managers noted: more efficient operations; more time banking less time trying to comply; spend less time on regulation; we could focus our energy and resources; spend less time monitoring compliance; I anticipate less emphasis each day on compliance; We would spend more time serving customers; Allow us to devote more time and resources to serving customers; day to day activities would be more efficient; A rollback of the burden of Dodd-Frank would allow me to be more responsive to customer needs. Financial market managers were then asked after the 2018 Actpassed, “How has this law affected your day-to-day activities?” The managers noted: Not affected my day-to-day activities; Did not have a significant impact; No effect; Impacts were very minimal; not affected at this point; eliminated some supervisory stress; will not affect; very little; improved our ability to service customers. The before and after results indicate that the expectations did not match reality. While most believed significant changes would result before the Relief Act, once reality set in, most financial managers noted the Relief Act had no impact, minor impact, or minimal impact
Click to expand...
https://articlegateway.com/index.php/JAF/article/view/4984/4754
 
The simple answer to “What is left of Dodd-Frank?” is: most
of it. The prudential regulation standards, while narrowly tailored, still
apply to the largest legacy banks in the United States.90 Although the
Growth Act has affected many areas of Dodd-Frank, the majority of
financial regulatory schemes remain untouched. Moreover, not enough
time has elapsed to collect data to determine what impact Digital
Realty will have on the prevalence or effectiveness of SEC reporting.
The most immediate question seems to concern the constitutionality of
the CFPB—which continues to develop—and whether Congress will
continue to relax other provisions of Dodd-Frank
Click to expand...
https://www.bu.edu/rbfl/files/2021/02/10-Skyler-Splinter.pdf
 
Lionfish said:
Who was SVB's Risk Assessment Manager? You know, the person who is in charge of keeping the bank stable.

Woke Head of ‘Risk Assessment’ at SVB ‘Prioritized’ LGBT Initiatives — Before Bank Lost Billions and Collapsed

Jay Ersapah – who describes herself as a ‘queer person of color from a working-class background’ – organized a host of LGBTQ initiatives including a month-long Pride campaign and implemented ‘safe space’ catch-ups for staff.

In a corporate video published just nine months ago, she said she ‘could not be prouder’ to work for SVB serving ‘underrepresented entrepreneurs.’

It comes after the firm became the largest bank to collapse since the 2008 financial crisis – disclosing a $1.8 billion loss in its finances.

The spectacular fall from grace puts Ersapah under scrutiny as ‘Head of Financial Risk Management and Model Risk’ for the company’s presence in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Ersapah was based at the bank’s London office.

Last year professional network Outstanding listed Ersapah as a top 100 LGTBQ Future Leader.

Get woke, go broke.
Click to expand...

So, a bank like SVB collapsed because of WOKE.

That's making the rounds right now. Kind of like "1/6 was just glorified tourism."

I remember when conservatives used to understand economics.
 
BartenderElite said:
So, a bank like SVB collapsed because of WOKE.

That's making the rounds right now. Kind of like "1/6 was just glorified tourism."

I remember when conservatives used to understand economics.
Click to expand...

She sound qualified to you? I remember when most lefties had a brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top