They are terrible people who should never hold office, but both have long and publicly available records of pushing for reform. I just want to know if they will actually do it if elected.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39674511)

Banks have much better balance sheets than pre-crisis and the regulators have done a solid job limiting systemic risk. This isn’t ten years ago

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39674606)

So Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment banking from commercial banking, providing legal protection for countless mergers that ultimately led to a number of bloated behemoths. Then during the 2008 crash, Obama bailed out the entire industry with no repercussions or even strings, with the explanation that these banks were too big to fail. Except that his policies led to banks that were now emboldened to become even bigger, and thus too bigger to fail.

Then Dodd-Frank was passed, which on its face was supposed to rein in finance industry shenanigans, except from the very beginning lobbyists swooped in like birds of prey to pick it apart and render it a corpse. Matt Taibbi says this:

"One initially promising rule preventing federally insured banks from trading in risky derivatives ultimately ended up exempting a huge chunk of the swaps market from the new law." If correct, this would seem to contradict what you're saying. He has more to say:

"The Volcker Rule banning proprietary gambling survived, but not before getting its brains beaten out in last-minute conference negotiations; Wall Street first won broad exemptions for mutual funds, insurers and trusts, and then, with the aid of both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, managed to secure a lunatic and arbitrary numerical exemption that allows banks to gamble up to three percent of their “Tier 1” capital, a number that for big banks stretches to the billions."

This article was written in 2012, so I'm reading a little bit to see whether the regulations have tightened up since then. So imagine my surprise when I found out that Trump rolled back regulations even more:

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/significant-rollback-of-dodd-frank-signed-into-law/

"Thus, BHCs with assets over $50 billion, regardless of their complexity, have been subject to the Federal Reserve’s enhanced prudential standards, including heightened liquidity requirement, stress testing, and resolution plan (living will) requirement.

The recently enacted law (Section 401) now raises that $50 billion threshold to $250 billion, exempting all but the largest banks in the country."

So it does seem to my inexperienced eyes that the industry does, in fact, badly need reform, but help me understand the gaps in my knowledge and flaws in my thoughts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39674825)

I’ll just say the volcker rule achieved nothing besides shifting risk from insured financial institutions to a million uninsured non bank lenders. It’s not like leverage hasn’t shot up by 100x since 2009 (google “shadow banking”)

I think you, Bernie and warren collectively know as much about banking S the left testicle of any mid bucket first year analyst. The less say you have the better for everyone

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39674886)

I have a more serious question. When you say that leverage has "shot up by 100x since 2009" do you mean that the Volcker rule hasn't done much to reduce systemic risk in the industry? If so, I think you're agreeing with Taibbi that "The Volcker Rule banning proprietary gambling survived, but not before getting its brains beaten out in last-minute conference negotiations." And the situation you describe does sound dangerous and in need of reform, but if I'm mistaken please let me know.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39674917)

I’ll just say you sound like a worthless rent seeking lawyer. Some people might have been thrilled that the economy has so much access to relatively cheap capital. while the global universal banks have never been less risky in terms of capital and risk weighted assets.

Obviously this upsets the retarded compliance lawyer and worthless politicians. That seems like an added bonus

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39681812)

Since one of the goals of Dodd-Frank, as far as I can tell, was to monitor and regulate the flow of money between, to, and from financial institutions, the growth of unregulated lending to trillions seems like a huge risk. Plus, as mentioned before, a Dodds-Frank provision that was supposed to restrict derivatives trading by federally insured bans ended up with huge loopholes thanks to Wall Street.

If all of this is true, Dodds-Frank seems to be a very broken promise, and flies in the face of your earlier assertion that "regulators have done a solid job limiting systemic risk."

Please let me know where I have erred.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39675030)

If nothing else, they won't have the Senate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39674611)

GC has a way of coming out on top no matter who does what.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39674630)

Speaking hypothetically, though, I just want to know if they can actually accomplish some actual reform if elected.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39675096)

"To a certain extent, proprietary trading was the key driving force that was behind the disaster," says Jeremy Berkowitz, a finance professor at the University of Houston. "For whatever the reason, Lehman and other banks decided to take positions in mortgages, and when those positions went south, so did the firms."

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1960565,00.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4454803&forum_id=2#39686576)