Deregulation is coming back! The housing bubble will return soon!

[Perspective]

It's confirmed: CFPB doesn't need to follow Trump's executive order on regulations
Along with other independent agencieshttp://www.housingwire.com/articles...-follow-trumps-executive-order-on-regulations

 

[peppy]

It's confirmed: CFPB doesn't need to follow Trump's executive order on regulations
Along with other independent agencieshttp://www.housingwire.com/articles...-follow-trumps-executive-order-on-regulations

The CFPB is on the chopping/neutering/defanging block.

 

[Perspective]

It's confirmed: CFPB doesn't need to follow Trump's executive order on regulations
Along with other independent agencieshttp://www.housingwire.com/articles...-follow-trumps-executive-order-on-regulations

The CFPB is on the chopping/neutering/defanging block.

It is. The Bureau failed to understand that politics matter. They've tried to do too much in too short of a timeframe. This isn't politically feasible. It's very predictable that the vested financial industry interests would collectively scream at their Congressmen/women and make large donations so as to protect their interests. Hensarling has been doing the industry's bidding for years.

 

[Perspective]

Congressman Duffy continued his assault on the truth this morning while questioning Yellen. He both complained about capital requirements hurting big banks, and yet complained that Dodd-Frank did nothing to curb big bank growth. He blamed Dodd-Frank for the consolidation in the smaller bank space. He argued Dodd-Frank does nothing to curb bad mortgage lending, the source of the Great Recession, and that it does nothing to reform the GSEs - claiming they were the source of the bad mortgage lending.

There is one morsel of truth in Duffy's statements today. He's right, Dodd-Frank does not reform the GSEs. Congrats Duffy! You're not completely dishonest and/or misinformed!

 

[Perspective]

"Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's petition for rehearing en banc of the court's decision in PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and vacated its October 11, 2016 judgment holding that the CFPB's structure is unconstitutional. Oral argument before the en banc court will be heard on May 24, 2017.

In its October 2016 decision, the appellate court found that the Director of the CFPB "enjoys more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government, other than the President." The appellate court ruled that the CFPB can continue to operate, but "will do so as an executive agency akin to other executive agencies headed by a single person, such as the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury" and will be removable by the President."
http://www.housingwire.com/articles...-case-agency-to-fight-unconstitutional-ruling

 

[Perspective]

Jeb Hensarling's Alternative Facts
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2017/02/jeb-hensarlings-alternative-facts.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+creditslips%2Ffeed+%28Credit+Slips%29

 

[jmoney74]

banks can get looser on their loans.. but they won't be letting people do the liar loans again.  30K get you  a 500K mortgage?  that won't happen again.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

banks can get looser on their loans.. but they won't be letting people do the liar loans again.  30K get you  a 500K mortgage?  that won't happen again.

I just did that yesterday.




Not really.

 

[Perspective]

?No unchecked federal agency should have the power to dramatically alter the financial choices of consumers through the rules it promulgates,? Rounds continued.
http://www.housingwire.com/articles...can-senator-introduces-bill-to-dismantle-cfpb

Translation:
"No federal agency should have the power to protect consumers from horrible financial choices pushed by a predatory financial industry, without being subject to financial industry lobbyists' money and influence just like I am!"

 

[Perspective]

Let the US Fiduciary Rule Go Aheadhttp://www.jeffrey-frankel.com/2017/02/24/let-the-us-fiduciary-rule-go-ahead/

 

[riznick]

Let the US Fiduciary Rule Go Aheadhttp://www.jeffrey-frankel.com/2017/02/24/let-the-us-fiduciary-rule-go-ahead/

We've laid off one Irvine resident already in preparation for this.  We will likely need to lay off 3-4 more locals here as a result in the next few months. 

 

[Perspective]

Let the US Fiduciary Rule Go Aheadhttp://www.jeffrey-frankel.com/2017/02/24/let-the-us-fiduciary-rule-go-ahead/

We've laid off one Irvine resident already in preparation for this.  We will likely need to lay off 3-4 more locals here as a result in the next few months.

Yes, preventing financial industry folk from gauging consumers in their retirement savings, is going to cost jobs in the financial industry. This is a good trade.

 

[riznick]

Yes, preventing financial industry folk from gauging consumers in their retirement savings, is going to cost jobs in the financial industry. This is a good trade.

We've already discussed that the rules are flawed, but your purposely ignore that.  The fact that you are happy that some innocent neighbors may be unnecessarily losing their jobs because of rules that you know are flawed, shows us your character. 

Companies in the finance industry are cutting a lot of their B2B ties.  Companies that service the financial industry could lose a substantial amount of their business.  Costs may go up now as well as it is estimated that it will become more expensive to manage money.  IMO, this adds more barriers to entry and will  result in consolidation of more and more companies.  The big companies get bigger and the small companies disappear.

To be clear, I do favor regulation in this industry and do think it can use more specific regulation. 

 

[Perspective]

Yes, preventing financial industry folk from gauging consumers in their retirement savings, is going to cost jobs in the financial industry. This is a good trade.

We've already discussed that the rules are flawed, but your purposely ignore that.  The fact that you are happy that some innocent neighbors may be unnecessarily losing their jobs because of rules that you know are flawed, shows us your character. 

Companies in the finance industry are cutting a lot of their B2B ties.  Companies that service the financial industry could lose a substantial amount of their business.  Costs may go up now as well as it is estimated that it will become more expensive to manage money.  IMO, this adds more barriers to entry and will  result in consolidation of more and more companies.  The big companies get bigger and the small companies disappear.

To be clear, I do favor regulation in this industry and do think it can use more specific regulation.

Thanks for the ad hominem - very popular with Trump and some folks here. Nowhere did I suggest I am happy people are losing their jobs (strawman). I would be happy if financial industry folks were required to assume a fiduciary duty to their clients, if only regarding retirement savings.

 

[jmoney74]

Lol there he goes with the ad hominem thing again. No point with this post anymore.

 

[riznick]

Thanks for the ad hominem

Just calling it like I see it.

- very popular with Trump and some folks here.

hmm, what's this?

Nowhere did I suggest I am happy people are losing their jobs (strawman). I would be happy if financial industry folks were required to assume a fiduciary duty to their clients, if only regarding retirement savings.

You used the phrase "This is a good trade", in response to people getting terminated.  IMO, when you use the term "good" in that phrase, it suggests you are happy with it.

I would be happy if financial industry folks were required to assume a fiduciary duty to their clients, if only regarding retirement savings.

I agree that sounds nice.  Have you researched both the pros and the cons of these rules?  Would you rather no cons be brought up?  Are you so invested into this that you don't care about any of the cons? 

 

[Perspective]

There is no perfect form of government, economic system, law, nor regulation. This fiduciary standard for retirement savings on balance, is better for consumers than the status quo.

If we wanted to increase employment in this area of the financial industry, we could eliminate the suitability standard for investments. Should we do that? Or, we could eliminate the accredited investor standard and increase employment even more! Should we do this?

Buffett's Letter To Berkshire Hathaway's Shareholders Puts A Bullseye On Investment Feeshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...s-a-bullseye-on-investment-fees/#427377b63fad

 

[Perspective]

President Trump: Dodd-Frank keeps banks from lending
Some argue the numbers say otherwise
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/39332-president-trump-dodd-frank-keeps-banks-from-lending

Regulatory reform is a hot topic for the current administration as the president and members of his cabinet seek to cut back on regulations and ease lending standards.

On Friday President Donald Trump continued his criticism of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, saying that the law prevents banks from lending, according to an article by Jim Puzzanghera for the Los Angeles Times.

From the article:

?We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that had nice businesses, they can't borrow money," Trump told leading corporate chief executives, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Larry Fink of money management giant BlackRock Inc., meeting at the White House earlier this month

"They just can't get any money because the banks just won't let them borrow it because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank," Trump said.

However, one critic argues that there is no data to back up this claim. In fact, the Federal Reserve shows that industrial bank loans increased 77% since October 2010.

From the article:

?Nobody?s come up with really solid evidence that they can point to that bank lending over the last few years has been overly constrained,? said Fred Cannon, global director of research at investment bank KBW. ?It certainly is not growing as fast as it was pre-crisis, but I?m not sure everyone wants no-doc, low-doc, non-verifiable lending again.?

But still others argue that the change can?t be seen in mere numbers, and that the increase in regulations is felt more in the types of loans banks originate, and for whom they are originated.

From the article:

?A lot of the terms that have come from Dodd-Frank do not give us as much flexibility as we have had in the past to extend credit to our customers,? said Jeffrey K. Ball, chief executive of Friendly Hills Bank in Whittier.

?Knowing my community and knowing my borrowers, I would love to be able to extend that credit,? he said. ?But from a risk standpoint, it elevates the hurdles you have to clear.?

Either way, Trump is already well on his way to try to dismantle Dodd-Frank. On Friday the president signed yet another executive order ? this time on regulatory reform that would cut the number of existing government regulations.

This executive order was a follow up to his January executive order on regulatory reform, taking it to the next level.

 

[hello]

Thanks for the ad hominem - very popular with Trump and some folks here.

I found this conversation very interesting but honestly, are you not guilty of the very same thing?  Perhaps this is even worse as you are making generalized attacks on many people...

 

[Perspective]

Thanks for the ad hominem - very popular with Trump and some folks here.

I found this conversation very interesting but honestly, are you not guilty of the very same thing?  Perhaps this is even worse as you are making generalized attacks on many people...

My intent with that comment was not to insult the person commenting, attempting to negate the opinion being given. My intent was to educate and shame Trump, and others, who resort to ad hominems regularly.