New report on how wall street paid for its own death

what your problem is you have proven nothing and have been so very proven wrong you wish to change the subject yet again.

The Securities and Exchange commission is the highest level our country has of just these issues.

The man Cox who Bush himself appointed struggled for years to finish implementing the GLBact 1999 ( the part with teeth) and he has said himself that his inability to regulate and the passage of GLB 1999 is what caused this mess.

But NOOOOOOO you would rather believe what you hear from Rush and Hannity.

guess again you dumbass bitch. I dont' listen to either of them. mainly because i work in a building all day without a radio. care to try to tack on another useless generality that won't stick so you can look even stupider?

As to GLB, you've had so many holes shot in your argument over that issue that it won't even block daylight anymore.
 
This is the stupidity that the right has sold you and you have lapped up like pablum.

You will allow them to make an asshole out of your by believing them when they tell you the wrong definition of a word as important as democracy.

Now you are fighting all the KNOWN information about the correct definitions of a word and looking like a complete bass with a fishhook deeply imbeded in your gullet.

Why to you stay with and defend the people who feed you fucking lies daily?

blame it on websters, thats where I pulled the definition from, but if it's wrong in there, your definition must be wrong also.
 
Nothing but bullshit show me one damned hole.

Without the consolidation of the lending industry the lenders would not have been able to sell the sub prime loans at the levels they did (which means if they could not sell them and make money they would not have written them).


You on the other hand try to blame Freddy and fanny who wrote not one single sub prime loan and was only a fraction of the enitre industry which played in these loans.

It your team who has a view of sunlight only through the thousands of holes in your theory.
 
Nothing but bullshit show me one damned hole.

Without the consolidation of the lending industry the lenders would not have been able to sell the sub prime loans at the levels they did (which means if they could not sell them and make money they would not have written them).


You on the other hand try to blame Freddy and fanny who wrote not one single sub prime loan and was only a fraction of the enitre industry which played in these loans.

It your team who has a view of sunlight only through the thousands of holes in your theory.

Now I know you're certifiable. Not one single thread in this entire forum, ANY forum for that matter, will you ever find me placing blame on those two companies alone. To suggest such shows the entire board you've lost the last two brain cells you had bouncing around in your dense assed skull.
 
In response to criticism of his signing the bill when President, Bill Clinton said in 2008:
.

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."
[15]

In February 2009, one of the act's co-authors, former Senator Phil Gramm, wrote in its defense that:

"...if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified.
" Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything.
It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB." [16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

desh comments are welcome ....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now...I realize that desh fancies herself smarter than both Bill Clinton and Phil Gramm...

that being the case, I would be interested to hear her explanation of why the GLB legislation
Has not been reversed by the Messiah....
Doesn't the Messiah know how terrible this law is and the damage its done....???

Or could it be the obvious...desh is a hypocrite and hack, that wants to, needs to, absolutly must, blame
Republicans for the banking mess....she'll grasp at any cock-eyed theory that will satisfy her obsession....
...............she's pathetic.....
 
Because the teeth part of the legislation was only implemented 8 years after its passing you tainwallow.

That was in the fall of 2007 after the damage to our economy was already done.

Tell me why it took the Bush admin so long to implement the part of the bill that actually protected the market?
 
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-190.htm


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue a second release concerning certain bank dealer activities and other related matters.

"A customer should be able to walk into a financial institution and get any financial product he or she needs — securities, insurance, banking or trust services," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "But Congress recognized those benefits couldn't be achieved without new ways to safeguard investors that would be consistent with continued innovation. Today's historic action, coming eight years after the passage of the law, is long overdue but welcome news for investors who will now begin to see the benefits of broader services and lower costs that the law intended."
 
The rule-writing process that culminated today in the Commission's vote of final approval has been an arduous one. After a series of interim proposals and regulatory actions that proved mostly fruitless between 1999 and 2005, the SEC made a fresh start 18 months ago. Chairman Cox convened a series of meetings that included the Board, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, and together the agencies hammered out the final rules that the Commission approved today.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
 
Because the teeth part of the legislation was only implemented 8 years after its passing you tainwallow.

That was in the fall of 2007 after the damage to our economy was already done.

Tell me why it took the Bush admin so long to implement the part of the bill that actually protected the market?

So Clinton is lying?
 
Because the teeth part of the legislation was only implemented 8 years after its passing you tainwallow.

That was in the fall of 2007 after the damage to our economy was already done.

Tell me why it took the Bush admin so long to implement the part of the bill that actually protected the market?

Bush had NOTHING to do with this legislation....it was law...the law for 2 full years BEFORE he was elected....

On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
and thats the extent of Bush involvement....
If you have a problem, take it up with Clinton...he defended it in 2008.....
 
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-190.htm

Trying to sell us that pig in the poke bullshit doesn't cut it desh....

The Gramm bill (Republican Gramm) did nothing but good for the entire banking industry....

I think your over trying to blame the bill and Gramm like you were for the past couple of months...
but now you want to alter course to blame Bush, thinking he was holding up the rules of the bill....
that crap too...
 
* * *
Key Provisions of the Joint Rules

The rules define statutory terms, and provide banks with exemptions from broker-dealer registration for limited bank securities activities. In addition, the rules provide an exemption from possible third-party rescission rights when a bank acts as an unregistered broker. The following is a detailed description of these provisions of Regulation R.

Networking Exception. The networking exception allows banks to receive compensation for referring bank customers to broker-dealers. The Exchange Act provides that banks may pay unregistered employees "nominal" incentive compensation for making these referrals.

Trust and Fiduciary Activities Exception. The trust and fiduciary activities exception permits a bank to effect securities transactions in a trustee or fiduciary capacity if it is "chiefly compensated" for those transactions, consistent with fiduciary principles and standards, on the basis of specifically enumerated types of fees. The rules refer to these fees collectively as "relationship compensation." These fees may be considered "relationship compensation" even if paid by a service provider rather than directly by an investment company.

The rules establish a test to determine how a bank is "chiefly compensated," and permit a bank to choose either an account-by-account or bank-wide approach. Either alternative uses a two-year rolling average comparison of the fees from the account and allows banks to exclude the compensation associated with a securities transaction conducted in accordance with any of the other exceptions or exemptions as long as the bank excludes that compensation from both relationship compensation (if applicable) and total compensation. The revenues of certain foreign branches of U.S. banks are excluded for purposes of the "chiefly compensated" test.

Sweep Accounts and Transactions in Money Market Funds. The sweep accounts exception permits a bank to sweep deposits into no-load, money market funds. The rules define terms used in the sweep accounts exception, and provide banks with a conditional exemption for transactions in money market funds that are not no-load as well as for transactions that are not sweeps. A bank relying on this exemption for transactions involving funds that are not no-load will have to provide the customer with a prospectus showing the fund's fees, and could not characterize the fund shares as no-load. This final rule also will permit a bank to effect transactions under the exemption on behalf of another bank as part of a program for the investment or reinvestment of the deposit funds of, or collected by, the other bank.

Safekeeping and Custody. The safekeeping and custody exception permits banks to perform specified services in connection with safekeeping and custody of securities. Under the exemption, banks can take orders for securities transactions from employee benefit plan accounts and individual retirement and similar accounts for which the bank acts as a custodian, as well as from other safekeeping and custody accounts on an accommodation basis.

Exemption for Banks to Effect Transactions in Investment Company Securities. The rules include an exemption that permits banks to effect certain transactions in mutual funds and in certain variable insurance products that are registered, and funded by a separate account, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, directly with a transfer agent, or directly with an insurance company or a separate account that is excluded from the definition of transfer agent in Section 3(a)(25) of the Exchange Act. To take advantage of the exemption, the security must not be traded on a national securities exchange or through the facilities of a national securities association or an interdealer quotation system.

Exemption for Banks to Effect Transactions in Company Securities. The rules include an exemption to permit a bank to effect a transaction in the securities of a company directly with a transfer agent acting for the company as long as four conditions are met. First, no commission may be charged with respect to the transaction. Second, the transaction must be conducted solely for the benefit of an employee benefit plan. Third, the security must be obtained directly from the company or an employee benefit plan of the company. And fourth, the security must be transferred only to the company or an employee benefit plan of the company. Securities obtained from, or transferred to, a participant in an employee benefit plan on behalf of the plan are considered to be obtained from, or transferred to, the plan.

Securities Lending Exemption. The exemption for banks from the definition of broker for noncustodial securities lending activities will reinstate a rule that would otherwise be voided by the Regulatory Relief Act. The existing rule was adopted as a part of the bank dealer rules and included exemptions for banks' brokerage activities associated with noncustodial securities lending. The Commission also voted to jointly with the Board request comment regarding repurchase agreements.

Regulation S Securities Exemption. The rules provide an exemption to allow banks to effect certain agency transactions involving Regulation S securities. Banks may rely on the rule if they have a reasonable belief that securities were initially sold in compliance with Regulation S.

Section 29 Exemptions. The rules provide banks with a transitional 18-month exemption to prevent their contracts from being void or voidable under Exchange Act Section 29(b). In addition, the rules provide banks with a permanent exemption from Section 29(b), where a bank has acted in good faith and had reasonable policies and procedures in place to comply with the bank broker rules and regulations, and any violation of the registration requirements did not result in any significant harm, financial loss, or cost to the person seeking to void the contract.

Key Provisions of the SEC-only Release
The second release to be issued by the Commission concerns a conditional exemption from the definition of "dealer" for banks' Regulation S transactions, renumbers the current exemption from the definition of "dealer" for banks' securities lending activities, eliminates outdated rules, and provides a clarifying amendment to Exchange Act Rule

Timing and Temporary Exemption
As adopted, Regulation R provides banks with a transitional exemption until the first day of their first fiscal year commencing after Sept. 30, 2008. This will give banks time to make any necessary changes in their systems and compliance programs and should ensure that banks have time to come into compliance with the Exchange Act provisions relating to the broker definition.

So feel free to explain what in these rules constitutes "teeth" ?
How would any of these provisions have helped prevent the banking mess??
 
Back
Top