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

WSO Elite Modeling Package

  • 6 courses to mastery: Excel, Financial Statement, LBO, M&A, Valuation and DCF
  • Elite instructors from top BB investment banks and private equity megafunds
  • Includes Company DB + Video Library Access (1 year)

Comments (43)

Best Response
Jun 8, 2017 - 8:56pm

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.

Jun 13, 2017 - 12:53pm

Trump vs Dodd-Frank Act (Volcker Rule) (Originally Posted: 11/20/2016)

Been surfing the web recently and came across many articles that suggest Trump could facilitate regulations on the banking sector & many suggesting that he might in fact remove the Volcker rule.

For those of you who don't know:

"The Volcker Rule refers to § 6191 (12 U.S.C. § 1851) part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, originally proposed by American economist and former United States Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to restrict United States banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments that do not benefit their customers." Wikipedia.

In other words, it is was forbids banks from Prop Trading (at least direct risk taking/speculation)

What do you guys think? Will the legendary Prop Desks make a comeback?

  • 3
Jun 8, 2017 - 9:06pm

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).

Jun 12, 2017 - 10:22pm

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.

Jun 13, 2017 - 12:54pm

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.

Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
Jun 13, 2017 - 12:58pm

Trump's vow to repeal Dodd-Frank (Originally Posted: 11/11/2016)

Hey guys, so obviously one of the main items of discussion on Donald Trump's agenda as president is to repeal Dodd-Frank. Many executives have acknowledged that one of the reasons for low productivity growth in this low interest rate environment has been the pile of restrictions, the increased capital requirements, and businesses reluctance to borrow money in fear of accumulating debt.

If the new president is successful in curtailing these restrictions, making it possible to lower reserve requirements, in theory this should allow banks to lend out those funds, making borrowing easier, and more attractive, and in general more activity in the middle market space, which has had a void in lending for the last decade.

How do you feel repealing dodd-frank would effect the economy, and would it cause interest rates to rise faster than anticipated?

Jun 9, 2017 - 12:40am

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.


  • 4
  • 1
Jun 9, 2017 - 7:08am

Yah they are idiots, and I don't think they'd pass it. Plus, most of them don't know how the banking system works and all have the same self righteous "Lets fuck things up for Wall Street" mentality. It's stupid that legislation can be passed or destroyed by a group of people that don't know shit about an industry.

Jun 13, 2017 - 12:59pm

a couple of guys talked about MM lending in my thread here:…

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.

Jun 13, 2017 - 1:00pm

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”
  • 2
Jun 13, 2017 - 1:01pm

Increases systemic risk long term but great for short term earnings and bonuses.

Jun 9, 2017 - 2:57pm

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.

Jun 10, 2017 - 3:03pm

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.

Jun 13, 2017 - 1:07pm

Trump Signs Actions to Begin Scaling Back Dodd-Frank (Originally Posted: 02/03/2017)…

WASHINGTON-President Donald Trump ushered in a friendlier era for Wall Street's relationship with Washington, calling for an end to eight years of rising regulations and publicly embracing some of the industry's top leaders.

At a White House meeting, Mr. Trump promised Friday to undo a bevy of restrictions on financial firms put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, while praising the CEOs of BlackRock Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

What concert costs 45 cents? 50 Cent feat. Nickelback.

  • 1
Jun 9, 2017 - 3:52pm

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.

Jun 13, 2017 - 1:08pm

Is anyone under the impression this is a good thing?

Jun 13, 2017 - 1:11pm

Everything I've read is that this is a limited repeal that will benefit mm and smaller banks which have been overly burdened with regulation best suited for much bigger banks.

Jun 13, 2017 - 1:13pm

Elimination of Dodd-Frank (Originally Posted: 05/18/2016)

Hey guys,

As I'm sure many of you have heard, Trump wants to get rid of Dodd-Frank completely. What are the implications of this? Donald also mentions he wants to "do something" about Silicon Valley and the "bubble" that is emerging as a result of tech start ups being overvalued without making any revenue. What sort of things do his policies mean for the street? Wanted to start an interesting discussion - kindly comment!

Jun 13, 2017 - 1:16pm

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:

Jun 13, 2017 - 12:14pm

Make Prop Trading Great Again!

Cheer up, Bateman. What's the matter? No shiatsu this morning?
  • 1
Jun 13, 2017 - 1:18pm

Minus eos ut occaecati eum. Qui alias repellendus natus quaerat. Accusantium iste error illo quam.

Voluptas omnis aut rerum et autem. Esse excepturi ipsum inventore totam consequuntur dicta sed. Aut labore ex facilis occaecati pariatur iure. Omnis sint aut pariatur quidem blanditiis excepturi impedit. Omnis dolores voluptatem rerum nobis veniam nemo at.

Itaque ad praesentium eum quod provident sunt. Tempora quia earum ipsam sunt veritatis quia. Neque dolorum nihil eos occaecati aut hic.

Minima explicabo qui quia eveniet nemo est eligendi. Vero iure porro debitis aliquid deleniti ad. Architecto rerum fugit ea quibusdam.

Jun 13, 2017 - 1:19pm

Qui reiciendis ab ut. Rerum quisquam non facilis quibusdam soluta tempore. Soluta a cumque magni rem. Eos et asperiores voluptas beatae quia voluptas et. Et assumenda amet et autem ex voluptas. Voluptates dolorum id rerum et.

Repellendus quis magni est autem ut aut. In expedita beatae hic. Officiis nam et vel omnis porro. Deserunt aut provident rem vitae.

Start Discussion

Total Avg Compensation

October 2021 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (10) $853
  • Vice President (39) $363
  • Associates (229) $233
  • 2nd Year Analyst (139) $155
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (32) $149
  • Intern/Summer Associate (104) $143
  • 1st Year Analyst (504) $135
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (387) $83