Bush administration proposes sweeping financial changes

ratAphooey said: "The Bush administration is proposing big changes for the financial system. [url]http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080331/fed_overhaul.html[/url] [quote] he plan, which would require congressional approval for its biggest changes, seeks to trim a hodge-podge collection of overlapping jurisdictions that date back to the Civil War. It would give the Federal Reserve more power to protect the stability of the entire financial system while merging day-to-day bank supervision into one agency, down from five at present. It also would create one super agency in charge of business conduct and consumer protection, performing many of the functions of the current Securities and Exchange Commission. It would, in addition, ask Congress to establish a federal Mortgage Origination Commission to set recommended minimum licensing standards for mortgage brokers, many of whom now operate outside of federal regulation, and it would also take a first step toward federal regulation of the insurance industry by asking Congress to establish an Office of Insurance Oversight inside the Treasury Department.[/quote] We are talking huge changes. This could change the whole game."

ratAphooey said: "These changes are ridiculous. I cannot imagine that the Fed should be able to shut down any bank they want. I bet this proposal never gets approved."

Heather said: "I think it's interesting that they are going to introduce a regulating body over mortgages now... it's a little late for that.."

RupertB said: "[QUOTE=Heather;66713]I think it's interesting that they are going to introduce a regulating body over mortgages now... it's a little late for that..[/QUOTE] Agreed. Its a good idea but the horses have left that barn. I see this as the Feds "mea culpa" for a decade of non-existent regulation. Unfortunately, reactive policy making frequently goes too far and has numerous unintended effects. I'm surprised at the absence of the SEC from the proposal since so much of the financial sector's problems stem from the plethora of debt vehicles that they created to spread (read: obscure) risk. Also, no mention of the ratings agencies' conflict of interest that resulted in so much of this junk getting a AAA rating."

StockMan69 said: "The more I have had time to think about this the more I dont like it. No way should the Fed bail out banks! Banks dont bail out their customers."

Financial Panther said: "[QUOTE=StockMan69;66851]The more I have had time to think about this the more I dont like it. No way should the Fed bail out banks! Banks dont bail out their customers.[/QUOTE] I think thats a little short sited. The only reason the fed came to the rescue, and will come to the rescue in the future, is to prevent a free fall...which would hurt EVERYONE, not only the banks. Im not sure about the sweeping regulations but I guess well have to wait and see. I think its more ludacris to bail out the home owners who signed ridiculous mortgages than to help out the banks."

StockMan69 said: "Ok. Why? Why is it okay to wipe out the debt of a company that was running idiotically but not the homeowners who made bad deals? Bail out all or NONE!"

Aligator said: "[QUOTE=StockMan69;66973]Ok. Why? Why is it okay to wipe out the debt of a company that was running idiotically.........[/QUOTE] Who's talking about that?"

Darren said: "What are the chances this proposal will even go through?"

Financial Panther said: "[QUOTE=StockMan69;66973]Ok. Why? Why is it okay to wipe out the debt of a company that was running idiotically but not the homeowners who made bad deals? Bail out all or NONE![/QUOTE] I feel its up to the homeowner to know what financial risk he is getting into. No one foreces the mortgage upon them and in the end the mortgage holder is the one who pays for it. This "bailout" was mostly contructed to secure the integrity of the whole financial system. You must agree there is a difference between 7 million mortgages in default and the whole collapse of an industry. Also, Im not aware of any debt being "wiped" away. The money was only to secure JP morgan from the further "possibility" of bad debt. The debt Bear has will be absorbed by JP. FP"

Financial Panther said: "[QUOTE=Darren;66986]What are the chances this proposal will even go through?[/QUOTE] Yeah not sure. This could all be a token gesture to gauge the climate. The mere thought of it might be able to do wonders to make the public "feel safe". FP"

Darren said: "[quote=Financial Panther;67006]Yeah not sure. This could all be a token gesture to gauge the climate. The mere thought of it might be able to do wonders to make the public "feel safe". FP[/quote] At some point it has to dawn on all of us that everything to do with investing is perception. If they can make people feel bullish about houses again, the problems are swept under the rug and the party can start again. Luckily, most Americans are pretty optimistic people."

SporeMonger said: "[QUOTE=Darren;67162]At some point it has to dawn on all of us that everything to do with investing is perception. If they can make people feel bullish about houses again, the problems are swept under the rug and the party can start again. Luckily, most Americans are pretty optimistic people.[/QUOTE] I agree Darren. I feel that the problem is that nobody [I]believes[/I] that the problems are over, and that makes up 50% of why the markets are down. The other 50% is that the problems really are not over. There is always a bottom however, and when things get back to normal, a lot of people will not only make mad money in stocks but will have their down-payments on the house that they want. This situation might actually create some serious wealth for this young to middle aged generation by retirement age: Nice IRA/401K returns plus a cheap house that is appreciating again... :th_coolio:"

lil dickie said: "Lets see if these $600 tax refund checks get people dancing in the streets."