More

Compare Senate, House Financial Reform Bills: CFPA, Fed, Derivatives Differences

Congress

The Associated Press   05/20/10 09:02 PM ET   AP

A comparison of the Senate and House financial regulation bills:

____

OVERSIGHT

_Senate: Creates a nine-member Financial Services Oversight Council made up of the treasury secretary, Federal Reserve chairman, a presidential appointee with insurance expertise, heads of regulatory agencies and a new consumer protection bureau that would monitor financial markets and watch for threats.

_House: Creates an 11-member council with similar duties.

____

CONSUMER PROTECTION

_Senate: Creates a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve to police lending, taking powers now exercised by various bank regulators. Those regulators could appeal bureau regulations to the oversight council, which could veto the regulations with a two-thirds vote. Federal regulators could override state consumer laws on a case-by-case basis. Currently states have a more difficult time applying their laws to national banks. Excludes from oversight any small business that does not engage in financial services.

_House: Creates a stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency to police lending. There's no process to veto agency regulations. State law provision is similar to Senate's. Specifically excludes from agency oversight real estate brokers and agents, accountants and tax preparers and auto dealers.

___

FEDERAL RESERVE

_Senate: The Federal Reserve would retain supervision over bank-holding companies and state-charted banks. It also would police large, interconnected nonbank institutions that the oversight council determines could pose a threat to the economy. With council approval, the Fed could break up large, complex companies that pose a grave threat to the financial system. The Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, would conduct a one-time examination of the Fed's emergency lending to financial institutions in the months surrounding the 2008 financial crisis.

_House: The Federal Reserve would lose consumer protection regulation authority and ability to unilaterally inject money into financial institutions. The GAO would be given broader power to conduct audits of the Fed.

___

CAPITAL STANDARDS

Senate: Banks with more than $250 billion in assets would have to meet capital standards at least as strict as those that apply to smaller banks. Banks would not be able to include as top tier capital certain securities that are tax deductible subordinated debt.

House: Any large bank holding company identified as posing a potential risk to the economy would be required to put up additional capital – more money and assets on hand. In computing capital requirements, regulators would include a bank's off-balance sheet activities, such as trusts held for clients. These companies also would face a leverage cap of 15-1 debt-to-net capital ratio.

___

DERIVATIVES

_Senate: Trades of derivatives, the complicated financial instruments blamed for accelerating the Wall Street crisis, would have to take place in regulated exchanges. Banks would have to spin off all their derivatives business into subsidiaries.

_House: Also regulates derivatives, but contains more exceptions for corporations that use derivatives as a hedge against price fluctuations, not as a speculative investment. The House does not require banks to spin off their derivatives business.

___

BANK RESTRICTIONS

_Senate: Regulators would devise rules to prohibit bank holding companies with commercial bank operations from speculative trading with their own accounts. Large, interconnected companies would have to put more money in reserve.

_House: The oversight council may prohibit any activity, including speculative trading by commercial banks with their own accounts, if it finds that the activity could threaten the stability of the financial system. Large, interconnected companies would have to put more money in their reserves.

___

EXECUTIVE PAY

_Senate: Shareholders would have the right to cast nonbinding votes on executive pay packages. The Fed would set standards on excessive compensation that would be deemed an unsafe and unsound practice for the bank.

_House: Shareholders would have the same right. Regulators would have a say on compensation practices, not on pay itself.

___

RATINGS AGENCIES

_Senate: An independent board would select ratings agencies to assess the risks of new financial products, replacing a long-standing practice where banks select and pay ratings agencies to rate their new offerings. The bill would also require a wholesale re-evaluation on how the government uses ratings agencies to assess risk. Ratings agencies are blamed for giving too high ratings to bad mortgage-related securities.

_House: Ratings agencies would have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and would face increased liability standards.

MORTGAGE LOANS

Senate: Lenders would be required to obtain proof from borrowers that they can pay for their mortgages. The would have to provide evidence of their income, either though tax returns, payroll receipts or bank documents. That provision seeks to eliminate so-called stated-income loans where borrowers offered no proof of their ability to make mortgage payments.

House: Similar provision.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
A comparison of the Senate and House financial regulation bills: ____...
A comparison of the Senate and House financial regulation bills: ____...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:49 PM on 06/07/2010
Predatory Lending is a major contributor to the economic turmoil we are currently experiencing.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Scott Veerkamp / Predatory Lending (Franklin Township School Board Member.)

Please review this information from U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley regarding deceptive lending practices:
"Steering payments were made to brokers who enticed unsuspecting homeowners into deceptive and expensive mortgages. These secret bonus payments, often called Yield Spread Premiums, turned home mortgages into a SCAM."

The Center for Responsible Lending says YSP "steals equity from struggling families."
1. Scott collected nearly $10,000 on two separate mortgages using YSP and junk fees. 2. This is an average of $5,000 per loan. 3. The median value of the properties was $135,000. 4. Clearly, this type of lending represents a major ripoff for consumers.

http://merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=A09C6A80-537A-4EB1-83C5-31925F046B6F
10:20 AM on 05/23/2010
This was all required and nothing that will change anything. I want to see an agency whose only job is to ensure enforcement of those of the rules.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
01:32 AM on 05/22/2010
The House version is by far and away stronger where it matters most -- in consumer protection and in the Fed's authority over TBTF. It also provides a limit on leverage -- critical! AND the ratings agencies would have to be policed by the SEC. It also prohibits spinning derivatives off into separate entities -- keeping it more accountable to the parent -- AND prevents the banks from using off-balance sheet entries to hide liabilities.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
04:31 AM on 05/22/2010
Not to mention it makes the audit of the Fed an ongoing process not a one-time deal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LinkSync
05:01 PM on 05/21/2010
And neither bill does a thing about TBTF or in any way caps or limits financial institutions size.
That is the worst failure but not by any means the only one.

The Bills are both weak and wellworked over by the Banksters.

Hopefully theycan be stregthened with a return to Glass-Steagle, caps on loan sharks like Payday and other required minimums.
If not...

Fire the Dems and the Thugs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SUPPERMAN
04:37 PM on 05/21/2010
Weak, what happened to payday loans at 400% APR is that why their stock is going up today!
imayes
Mongo like candy!
12:08 PM on 05/21/2010
J-Rome pointed me to this:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/article_35af00b4-64e9-11df-805d-001cc4c002e0.html

Elizabeth Warren id OK with the bill, so that's enough for me!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
xlntcat
04:37 PM on 05/21/2010
The Treasury asked Warren to help write the Consumer Protection section of the original bill that the Economic Team walked up the hill over a year ago. Warren, however, did go over each division of the bill (the one she helped write) on CNBC and her opinion was that the bill was sound. The House bill is said to be stronger than the Senate bill but with a few exception it looks like part of the Senate bill is stronger than the House bill. Shelby and McConnell weren't able to keep their promise to the banks and hedge funds and reportedly Wall Street is furious.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
dc2nm
I don't want a micro-bio.
11:50 AM on 05/21/2010
Although these bills don't go quite far enough, they are a good start. We have 2 more major bills that need to go through quickly...immigration and climate change/energy regulation (plus the repeal of DADT...but that won't be until the next Congress).

Overall, I think the major bills that have been passed by this congress and this president were quite an accomplishment for the current political environment.

Hopefully, dems can hold it together enough to keep control of the house and senate to be able to improve on these bills over the net 2 yrs.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
CJCalgirl
nothing breeds faster than stupid
04:15 PM on 05/21/2010
dc2nm, Fanned!!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:10 AM on 05/21/2010
It goes for the legislature as well as the people.

"If voting changed anything they would make it illegal."
Emma Goldman
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mcartri
10:53 AM on 05/21/2010
The health care insurance industry essentially wrote health care reform & the banking industry wrote their own "reform laws". Just what one would expect in an oligarchy. The corporate owned politicians pretend there is a functioning democracy in America. Pleaseeee...
imayes
Mongo like candy!
09:26 AM on 05/21/2010
I have only one question...WWEWD?

What Would Elizabeth Warren Do?

From what I can tell (from this brief synopsis anyway) this appears to be a good step in the right direction. I wish there could be more transparency in the Federal Reserve, which I still think has too much autonomy within our financial system. I'll reserve final judgment until I learn more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
J-Rome
Onward!
12:00 PM on 05/21/2010
She would and does support this bill.

“No bill that deals with big issues is ever perfect, but the Senate’s Wall Street reform package will go a long way toward preventing the kinds of abusive practices that brought our economy to its knees,†Elizabeth Warren, head of the Congressional Oversight Panel and an advocate of the new consumer watchdog, said in a statement.


http://host.madison.com/ct/news/article_35af00b4-64e9-11df-805d-001cc4c002e0.html
imayes
Mongo like candy!
12:07 PM on 05/21/2010
Thanks for the link.

Elizabeth likes it and the business interests hate it. That means a BIG WIN in my book!
09:17 AM on 05/21/2010
Clearly the Senate is corrupt.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mcartri
10:56 AM on 05/21/2010
Majority whip Dick Durbin of Illinois: "The banks own this place[Senate]".
09:07 AM on 05/21/2010
These bills are too weak to matter.
10:00 AM on 05/21/2010
I wouldn't say that. They are certainly too weak to prevent another financial crisis. And too weak to disrupt the power of the megabanks. But there are good provisions in there. There just needs to be more. They could pass the needed measures separately. I'm afraid Congress is just going to wash their hands and go off to spend money on the war and pretend to care about immigration reform.
11:31 AM on 05/21/2010
If it can't prevent another crisis, it is too weak to matter. No one will remember this legislation the next time we get another Lehman/AIG situation.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Smirnonn
Ale's What Cures Ya.
09:03 AM on 05/21/2010
Wow. The Senate version practically looks like it was written by the banksters. Both versions fail, however, as neither of them address TBTF. The pervasive influence of lobbyists in Congress has almost completely emasculated both houses. It no longer matters what the majority of their constituents want (i.e. the public option). The schills on the hill will vote in the interest of whoever lines their pockets and maintain the facade of serving their constituents. Ahhh, plutocracy.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dizmo4
10:58 AM on 05/21/2010
Did you even bother to read the above article?

"Senate: Trades of derivatives, the complicated financial instruments blamed for accelerating the Wall Street crisis, would have to take place in regulated exchanges. Banks would have to spin off all their derivatives business into subsidiaries."

That is a HUGE hit to the big financial firms. This is why Wall St. HATES the Senate version.

No, It doesn't address TBTF, but it does go a long way to fix many of the chronic problems with teh financial industry.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Smirnonn
Ale's What Cures Ya.
12:38 PM on 05/21/2010
"Did you even bother to read the above article?"

Yeah, but just couldn't get the whole TBTF thing out of my head. Had a rough morning. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire and not calling me an idiot :)

Cheers!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
stopthemadness69
Real Americans care more about people than profits
11:51 AM on 05/21/2010
We must get away from this all or nothing mentality. Just because you can't fix every aspect of the problem at one time, does not mean you do nothing.
If your child had an F would you tell them "bring that up to an A, and I don't want to see any B's or C's in the process, bring it up to an A or leave it at an F?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Smirnonn
Ale's What Cures Ya.
12:18 PM on 05/21/2010
I agree. Thanks for being a voice of reason :) I was in an extremely sour mood this morning and shouldn't have posted. I retract what I said except for the part about lobbyists. They do have waaaay too much influence!

The fact that this is the most comprehensive regulation on Wall Street since the Great Depression is not lost on me. I did hope, however, that TBTF would've made it through. The opportunity for comprehensive reform is a reality right now due to the momentum provided by massive distrust of and disdain for Wall Street. Public opinion may never be this much in the corner of those who want comprehensive reform. It's a lot easier to get somewhere when you're swimming with the current.

It should be interesting to see how this bill reconciles with the House version!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
08:59 AM on 05/21/2010
(Note to all posters: please read the article first. If you don't understand it, don't post, you are just embarrassing yourself.)

There are major differences in the House and Senate versions.
Usually the Senate is weaker than the House, but oddly not on derivatives.
Either way, the bill is strong reform. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not affected by it.

The most important section is CAPITAL STANDARDS, which limit a banks "leverage".
It requires banks to actually HAVE the money they are loaning and gambling.
(Not really; it limits the "multiple"; they can only gamble (say) 10x instead of 250x.)

When you limit a banks leverage, you limit how big they can grow.
So they don't become "too big to fail". This bill will prevent that, over time.

The big banks and Wall St will hate this bill. CONGRATULATIONS!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeannine Bogielski
09:26 AM on 05/21/2010
What if they are already too big to fail?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:32 AM on 05/21/2010
People don't understand what their "bigness" is. It's not their capital, the money they have. It's their "leverage", the money they have loaned or invested.

For example, how much total mortgage money they have outstanding; that's what makes them big. It's their actual assets, the interest on it is their revenues.

If they can now only loan out (say) 10x their capital, but before were doing 50x, they can now only grow 1/5th as large as before.

What about the mortgages they already made? Some will go under, get paid back, etc. They will continue to "deleverage", which is what has been happening already, that's what the debt crisis, that's what Greece is.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dizmo4
10:59 AM on 05/21/2010
You sir, have a new fan.
08:25 AM on 05/21/2010
yyyyaaaaawwwwnnnnnnn.....just like in the helathcare reform bill (where the insurance companies are NOW working, bribing, stealing their butts off at the "regulators" level, to make sure that the "RULES" implemented are to their liking), so too will anything in this bill that is usefull pass into the night of lobbying and money.

But the politico's will all slap themselves on the back and say "look what we did for you, the little people"...then take their next next load of campaign cash from lobbiest NOT in their districts/state AND continue to load up on their taxpayer funed pensions and health benefits.


Folks, they had a chance to do the right thing in this bill (like in healthcare) and simply BREAK up the "too big to fail"...they PASSED.

"too big to fail" is "too big to regulate".........I don't understand why more middle class people don't get that?

The middle class continues to take a beating in this bill (like in healthcare) and this from the party that is SUPPOSED to be on our side!

the 65 year experiment of a strong/growing middle class is truly DEAD now.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
08:46 AM on 05/21/2010
How wrong can you be? Do you know anything about the financial world?
Wall St will HATE this bill, House or Senate version.
See above.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Smirnonn
Ale's What Cures Ya.
09:04 AM on 05/21/2010
X2. Extremely well stated! #36.