We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • A Dodd-Frank Watchdog Still Growls, on a Slightly Tighter Leash

    April 5, 2016 by Peter Eavis

    At first glance, two events this week suggest that federal regulators are losing ground against “too big to fail” financial institutions.

    The 2008 financial crisis revealed that both banks and financial firms that were not banks — like the American International Group — could pose a devastating risk to the financial system and the wider economy. Congress’s primary response came in 2010 with the passage of the Dodd-Frank reform law, a sweeping bill that gave regulators broad powers, including a powerful new tool. They could identify nonbanks that were “systemically important,” and then subject them to stricter regulation.

    Some of the nonbanks given that designation, like A.I.G., dutifully complied. But another insurance firm, MetLife, fought back in the courts, and won a big victory on Wednesday. A federal judge struck down the “systemically important” designation for MetLife.

    Its effect was immediate. Regulators for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who had recently taken residence in the insurer’s offices, had to leave the premises.

    On Thursday, General Electric made a regulatory filing to shed its designation as a systemically important firm and to be freed from the Fed’s oversight.

    Another big score for the industry?

    The week may give the impression of a rollback, but a wider view shows that Dodd-Frank is mostly intact — and exacting slow, steady results.

    The act has stamped out many risky practices. The largest banks are operating with substantially higher levels of capital — the financial foundation of a bank. The largest banks appear to be slowly shrinking.

    Right now, General Electric can actually be seen as a success story for regulators. Its lending operation slimmed down — it slashed its assets by more than half, or over $250 billion — in response to being designated as systemically important.

    President Obama with Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank after signing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

     

    As for MetLife, there is some credence to its argument that it’s not a threat to the financial system. It has nearly $900 billion of assets, which makes it a large firm — bigger than, say, Lehman Brothers in 2008. But MetLife also contends that insurance is a more stable business that is not as vulnerable to the sort of runs that can take down a bank.

    Notably, the federal court ruling probably does not give traditional banks, like JPMorgan Chase, a pathway to shed stricter regulations.

    The Fed has required the largest banks to have significantly higher levels of capital than smaller lenders. But the Fed does not need to go through the Financial Stability Oversight Council when identifying which traditional banks have to operate under these more stringent requirements.

    Still, the true impact of the MetLife court ruling won’t be known until it is unsealed, as early as next week.

    Even a ruling that disagrees with the council’s methods, rather than its right to identify systemically risky firms, could substantially restrain the council and embolden the anti-overhaul forces to strike elsewhere.

    House Republicans, for instance, have said that the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the entity that designates nonbanks, is not transparent and has too much power, a criticism they have also made of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, another entity set up by Dodd-Frank (to protect consumers against unfair lending practices).

    A ruling that requires the council to jump through a lot more hoops — like performing cost analyses — could slow it down considerably. That might not seem like such a big deal now, when markets appear to be relatively stable.

    But imagine a situation like the lead-up to 2008. A.I.G. placed huge and risky bets over a relatively short period, rapidly turning itself into a danger to the system. The council, operating under new restrictions meant to slow it down, might not be able to stop another A.I.G. before it’s too late.

    And then the battles over “too big to fail” would be right back where they started.

    Originally Posted at The New York Times on April 1, 2016 by Peter Eavis.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency