House Votes to Gut Dodd-Frank

The House voted 233 to 186 today for a sweeping rewrite of the rules governing Wall Street, an opening Republican bid to encourage economic growth by loosening regulation of the financial sector.

The House bill would unwind major parts of Dodd-Frank by relieving healthy banks of some regulatory requirements and forcing failing firms through bankruptcy rather than a liquidation process spearheaded by the regulators. It would subject new financial rules to cost-benefit analysis, boost penalties for financial wrongdoers, and repeal the Volcker rule restricting banks from speculative trading. Supporters of the plan say scrapping what they view as onerous regulatory requirements will ultimately help smaller businesses, allowing them to grow and create jobs.

Good news for finance careers? Bad for the US?

Link to WSJ article

 
Best Response

Ok what you're actually missing from this repeal is the effect Dodd-Frank had on despositories. Dodd-Frank requires strict capital requirements for any bank that falls even remotely under the category of a depository in the FDIC's eyes. And because of this, smaller bank's have suffered for the past 8-9 years. So now all of the smaller banks (small banks are probably the biggest contributor to community and metropolitan growth and development) will actually be able to run like a normal organization without having to worry about the costs of strict compliance. This is probably one of the greatest regulatory overhauls in recent history, and it's going to spur major economic growth. And also, Dodd-Frank was very poorly written and all inclusive. It literally borderline infringed upon the rights of U.S. banks, so thank god reform is happening.

 

One other point I want to add. Even though Volcker is going to be trashed, banks won't prop trade. Shareholders as well as management in any respectable bank are too risk averse to even consider allocating capital to a prop segment. No one actually knows why The Volcker Rule restricted prop trading, because speculative trading was in no way shape or form the cause of the financial collapse (This was such an ignorant piece of legislation honestly).

 

The Volcker Rule existed because there was an obvious conflict of interest between certain firms (mainly Lehman) prop trading in certain asset classes (MBSs) and the interests of their shareholders. Banks with deep B/Ss could also do serious damage to certain asset class (again, Lehman). Most banks still won't touch it but look for places like GS/BAML/Citi to take part.

 

I can't speak for what banks will do, but it's possible Volcker rule goes away. The Financial CHOICE Act has passed committee in the house and it includes removing the Volcker Rule. Trump has had "positive" meetings with Jeb Hensarling (chair of the Finacial Services Committee and sponsor of the bill) and has stated he wants to drastically change Dodd Frank.

The problem is senate filibustering rules. The Republicans would need to pick up 8 votes to overcome a filibuster. This is where it gets interesting. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer from NY has tended to be friendly to Wall Street but stated the dems would easily stop a Dodd Frank repeal. My guess, however, is that Schumer is pandering to the Bernie-Warren faction of the democratic party to cement his leadership. Yet Schumer is a deft political tactician and decided centrist. I think the senate will probably amend the bill and send it back to the house. Chances are those amendments will include nixing the part about completely undoing Volcker and add something Glass-Steagalish.

I think changes to Volcker are needed though for the sake of clarity and economic growth. So if a financial bill passes I would expect at least some modification, which would probably be positive for the financial industry.

 

Exactly what's needed, but I don't know how it passes the Senate. Need some Democrats to actually reasonably consider the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. Getting the liberal Democrats to rationally consider anything in the era of Trump is unlikely. They are stewing in their own hatred for Trump in such a powerful way that it makes my utter contempt for Obama look friendly.

Array
 

a couple of guys talked about MM lending in my thread here: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/alternative-lenders-the-end-of-ri…

in general, relaxed credit leads to economic growth, all else being equal, but the issue is if banks go back to some of the risky lending practices that got us into the crisis in the first place, then we're no better off. I would like to believe they're not that stupid, but I don't know.

before I give a really educated opinion, I'd have to see what he specifically wants to get rid of.

 

Small banks can't afford/deal with the DF capital requirements and regulations. This has propelled consolidation in the industry in favor of the 'systemically important' institutions (i.e., zombie banks). The zombie banks are too risk averse to put the capital to use and large firms don't see too many attractive investments (low NPV). The result is that we've had Japanese style growth throughout Obama's presidency. The government has tried to prop up the economy via fiscal policy but, as in the case of Japan, with no success (as the debt continues to grow to unprecedented levels).

Our best option is to pull back on financial regulation and to allow interest rates to float. This will have a dramatic, adverse affect in the near term, but longer term, it would 'drain the swamp,' so to speak.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

Lots of consequential changes in the bill that passed. The one I'm most focused on is gutting Rule 14a-8 regulating shareholder proposals. Currently a shareholder needs 1% of stock or $2K minimum stock held for a year to get proposal on ballot. CHOICE would remove $2K minimum, meaning only activist hedge funds or huge asset owners (e.g., BlackRock, Vanguard) could ever challenge management. If you wanted to poke AAPL with a shareholder reso, you'd need to own $8 billion of the stock. A far-reaching change to corp. governance, to be sure. However, analyst consensus is that the whole bill dies in the Senate. There will never be any Dem votes for this.

 

I would count the gutting of this proposal as a win. The last thing we need need are social crusaders or self-centered individuals putting forth a multiplicity of shareholder proposals that have little, if any, value to the running of a company. The only people who should be proposing anything are those that are sophisticated enough to understand fully the repercussions of their proposals.

 

If there is overhaul, it will be bad for Consultants as their lifeblood is off regulation.

If there is overhaul, you'll see some more headcount I think in ECM/DCM and maybe M&A. I say maybe M&A as companies will probably benefit from organic growth more than inorganic in a lower reg environment (just speculating here).

I think smaller shops will add headcount. Larger firms? They'll just plug and play. They will bring on a few high performing MDs and maybe VPs, but junior? Same shit different market. Just IMO.

 

I'm not in IBD or S&T, so I don't have a lot of info. what I do know is that because of Dodd Frank many firms (mine included) are spinning off or shutting down divisions of the company that are no longer as profitable (for some, this is commodities related) or are no longer legal for banks to have (prop trading).

check this out as well: http://www.mofo.com/files/uploads/images/summarydoddfrankact.pdf

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”