GG Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 It also strips certain entities of regulatory responsibilities (such as State regulators). The State securities regulators serve an important front-line role that will be severely curtailed by the proposal. I'm still digesting exactly what the proposal means for all involved entities. That's if you believe that the states have the resources to properly regulate modern financial transactions. The recent state actions have been on the tail side of things going wrong, not necessarily preventing blow-ups. Thus, it's not like great vigilantes will be stripped of their power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 That's if you believe that the states have the resources to properly regulate modern financial transactions. The recent state actions have been on the tail side of things going wrong, not necessarily preventing blow-ups. Thus, it's not like great vigilantes will be stripped of their power. You're correct, however the States are the front-liners identifying trends aimed at consumers. States have no clue how to regulate modern institutions, but they are effective at protecting residents from scams and identifying them earlier in the process than Federal regulators or SROs. A good example of this is the coordinated State campaign aimed at the free-lunch-for-seniors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 You're correct, however the States are the front-liners identifying trends aimed at consumers. States have no clue how to regulate modern institutions, but they are effective at protecting residents from scams and identifying them earlier in the process than Federal regulators or SROs. A good example of this is the coordinated State campaign aimed at the free-lunch-for-seniors. Obviously the full details aren't out yet, but I doubt that states' traditional role of protecting consumers would stop nor would the new Fed regs prevent that. I see a parallel to how telecom is handled, FCC deals with macro transmission issues while states worry about quality of service to the customers. There's no reason that states' AGs need to check on how banks/financials are capitalized, they need to check that people aren't being ripped off in their states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Bad. If you believe in capitalism. This steps toward socialism. Not to mention empowering the entity that created the mess in the first place (the Fed). Thanks for your answer. I still don't know what the heck they are talking about. But I did understand it the way you explained it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts