S.3217 - Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010

To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail," to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. view all titles (26)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail," to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Official: A original bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Bank and Savings Association Holding Company and Depository Institution Regulatory Improvements Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Bank and Savings Association Holding Company and Depository Institution Regulatory Improvements Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Enhancing Financial Institution Safety and Soundness Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Financial Stability Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Office of National Insurance Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Enhancing Financial Institution Safety and Soundness Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Financial Stability Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Office of National Insurance Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Official: An original bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 66 total comments.

justamick 04/23/2010 6:17am

The “Volcker Rule,” as drafted in Section 619 gives regulators the discretion to limit & prohibit some investment activities of financial services companies. In particular, this bill directs regulators to prohibit government insured depository institutions from engaging in “proprietary trading,” whereby a company trades for its own account. However, the reach of the bill extends beyond the bounds of a depository institution to its affiliates & subsidiaries. For insurers that own banks or thrifts, this could mean that all of the investment activity essential to the running of the insurance operations would be significantly limited to investment in only government securities, despite these operations already being heavily regulated by state insurance regulators. The result would be that products that require more robust investments to support them would be limited to government securities, which do not earn enough to keep the cost of such products affordable.

catelong 04/22/2010 9:04am

Learn more about the issues in financial reform at Riski, the open source platform for financial market reform:

Break up banks — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Break_up_banks

Resolution authority — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Resolution_authority

Derivatives — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Derivatives

Credit rating agencies — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Credit_rating_agencies

KathChalmers 04/17/2010 9:22pm

Is this a bad bill overall? I don’t know, but sections 412 and 926 will dramatically reduce angel investing in an already very difficult funding environment. For a good analysis see Startups Get Hit By Shrapnel In The Banking Bill by Fred Wilson at http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/startups-get-hit-by-shrapnel-in-the-banking-bill.html

justamick 04/22/2010 5:44am
in reply to justamick Apr 19, 2010 7:25am

Giving the government the power to break up a company that has become to large is a power that they should not have and it is a direct contradiction to the idea of a “Free Market” and Capitolism.

The idea of prosecuting fraudlent acts should be prosecuted as no one.. NO ONE is above the law.

Something many people are missing here is that this “Fund” is being funded by the company’s themselves… But where do they get that money from? That’s right! The consumer! What ever extra taxes that the government will inevitably impose on banks and business to contribute to this fund will ultimately be passed onto the CONSUMER otherwise know as the American Tax Payer!

So, remove the fund, and remove the ability for the government to step in and break up a business and then we’ve got ourselves a bill I would favor.

flower 05/25/2010 1:06pm
in reply to pramsey Apr 19, 2010 6:02am

we need the transparency in the FEDERAL reserve, they have been printing money like crazy these past few years and nobody knows where is it all going. What congress is trying to do is to let us know where our tax money is pocketed.

LucasFoxx 04/27/2010 1:29am
in reply to nmeagent Apr 26, 2010 7:24pm

“We haven’t had anything close to unrestrained capitalism since the 19th century.”

Thankfully.

LucasFoxx 06/08/2010 8:52pm
in reply to btd May 21, 2010 7:37am

That was my point. As you say, the gov’t (tries to) legislate ethics. Yet, as you notice, they can’t stop racism, poverty, terrorism, ignorance, nor …homicide.

I liked Glass-Steagall. And I agree: credit ratings need to be addressed.

uncleray 05/21/2010 4:27am

The bureaucracy did not catch the problem earlier
so adding a layer seems pointless.
Bring Back Glass Steagall!!!

dragonflylover 05/24/2010 10:13am

In your mind Greed is not a crime, but in the BIBLE that republicans use to convience us that government is a bad thing, it does claim that GREED is a sin! The same as a crime! Right? So when things are intentionally hid from the people that are paying into it, that in your mind is not a sin (crime)? WOW! REPUBLICAN FREEDOMS SUCK! and maybe back in the day free men could be trusted, However with the growing population how can ANYONE claim we don’t need OVERSEERS? With all the dope heads, alcoholics, child molesters, racists, common crooks and the list goes on and on and on how can a sane adult still deny we need overseers

LucasFoxx 04/22/2010 9:15pm

I want this. I’ve worked hard all my whole life building a portfolio I can retire on. I don’t want to lose my life savings because a handful of greedy f#₵k$ can crash the system and parachute out. That’s a risk I don’t want to take. I’m not rich enough to have money sheltered overseas. Without some protection, we are at the point where the only safe investments seem to be in mattresses or a hole in the backyard. I suppose we could just liquidate everything and put it in FDIC insured accounts. Where will capitalism go when people don’t trust the system enough to capitalize it? These corporations are free to use our investments to drown out our freedom of speech with their “freedom of speech” in elections. If congress doesn’t act now, we may never get another chance at protection from the greed of these people.

btd 05/21/2010 7:37am
in reply to AustinHowe May 17, 2010 7:19am

Glass-Steagall would be fine in my mind. But credit rating agencies are a must. And from what I’ve read, this doesn’t even touch them!

We’re in a marketing driven economy (push) not a market driven economy (pull). Until people wise up, they are screwed.

And LucasFoxx, the gov’t legislates ethics all the time (Civil Rights Act, Community Reinvestment Act, Medicare, Social Security, War on Terror, the Dept of Education, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell… The question is whether it’s effective or not. Racists, poor old people, terrorists, and ignorance still abound.

justamick 04/23/2010 6:24am
in reply to justamick Apr 23, 2010 6:17am

To illustrate this effect, insurers collect premiums from customers in return for a promise to pay a possible future claim. During the time between the collection of premiums and the claims payout, the insurer takes those premium dollars and invests them in order to ensure that funds exist to pay later arising claims. By limiting an insurer’s investments to government securities, that insurer may not be able to generate the income necessary to continue offering its products at affordable rates. This could then result in the need to charge higher premiums on policies and pay less favorable rates on annuities.

dusrus 04/26/2010 9:51am
in reply to dusrus Apr 19, 2010 1:40pm

I stand corrected Opencongress.org has taken the time to answer me. http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1839—50-Billion-Liquidation-Fund-is-for-Killing-Sick-Mega-Banks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpenCongressCongressGossipBlog+%28Open+Congress+Blog%29

Thanks open congress, helpful as always,

~Dusrus

tlfmd 05/22/2010 5:09pm

Teeth, give it TEETH or forget it.
A pansy bill would be worse than USELESS. It would prevent adoption of a good bill.
The fools with the money have all the reason in the world to ensure their exclusion from regulation or penalty. After all, they have the money to buy the vote they need.
By the way, they are the face of the recent disaster, where the rubber met the road.

dusrus 04/19/2010 1:40pm
in reply to polcat Apr 18, 2010 12:01pm

Hm, what makes you say that. My understanding is there is a fund, funded by the banks themselves to bailout the large banks.
so it doesn’t impact taxes and it just means they have to bal themselves out not the government. correct me if I am wrong, please.

moattorney 04/29/2010 5:02pm
in reply to deborahg6 Apr 21, 2010 6:22pm

The idea that Congress can just pass a bill to end bailouts is a pipe dream. If H. Paulson, a free market fundamentalist like yourself, thought that he was about to watch the entire financial system sink into the abyss and take the whole economy with it, and he couldn’t say, “Let them fail and let the chips fall where they may” no one else is going to do it either. Not after we let the banks fail during the Great Depression and we know what that led to.
TARP required an act of congress. Any bill passed to outlaw bailing out banks can and will be repealed and replaced by later congresses faced with an apparent meltdown of the financial system.

pramsey 04/19/2010 6:02am
in reply to vlobato9817 Apr 16, 2010 6:38am

I am learning, as time goes by, that the “Transparency” that they are referring to is actually “We (congress) are going to lay it all out on the table in plane view, do what we want, and damn what the people want”

dr0b3rts 05/29/2010 9:48pm
in reply to Marv63095 Apr 16, 2010 1:29pm

Independent consumer watchdog = good.
Ran by the government (controlled by special interests) = bad.

AustinHowe 05/17/2010 6:53am

I support the bill, but I still think that a simple reinstatement of the Glass Steagall act could almost singularly solve the problem.

deborahg6 04/21/2010 6:22pm

Here’s how we end financial bail outs: Congress, let them fail. Don’t overstep the boundaries of the Constitution. It wasn’t your responsibility in the first place.

Here’s how we deal with regulations: When a company commits a fraudulent act, prosecute them. Fraud is already illegal.

moattorney 04/29/2010 5:20pm
in reply to nmeagent Apr 27, 2010 3:39pm

So when Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and G Bush said that they were deregulating the financial industry, all four of them were lying?
The government hasn’t been heavily “screw around” with finanical markets for over a century. Strong government involvement in financial markets begain circa 1933, and began to wane circa 1981. In the 1800’s, we had financial crises (and resulting severe recessions) once a decade or so. From `1933 to 1981, no systemic financial crises. After Reagan, Savings and Loan Crisis, Long-Term Capital Managment, Enron, and now the CDO/Derivatives/Prime Mortage Crisis.
And don’t try blaming the CRA. The overwhelming majority of subprime loans were made by private mortgage companies like Countrywide which were not subject to the CRA.

moattorney 04/29/2010 5:12pm
in reply to justamick Apr 23, 2010 6:19am

Typically, when the SEC has forced open, transparent exchanges for financal products, the transactional costs for consumers go down, not up. The SEC made NYSE open up to electronic trading, which allowed E-Trade and others to compete against Wall Street firms who complained about the changes cutting into their profits. Transparency and open markets, as opposed to secret deals, should make derivatives and swaps cheaper as well.

justamick 04/23/2010 6:19am
in reply to justamick Apr 23, 2010 6:17am

For some of us who use insurance companies like this, this could mean more out of pocket costs to the consumer.

TBSchemer 04/19/2010 12:21am

So, this bill ends taxpayer bailouts of “too big to fail” companies by letting the government force companies to dissolve before they dissolve on their own? How is this a good idea?

This bill doesn’t end bailouts- it makes them official policy. A better summary would state that the bill ends the need for future bailout bills by letting the President and his appointees start buying out and bailing out without worrying about silly things like congressional approval.

This bill is H.R. 4173 2nd edition. Dodd is insane if he thinks the Consumer Protection Agency in the original resolution was the only real problem with it. http://tbschemer.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/government-buyouts-and-bailouts-to-become-permanent-policy/

nmeagent 04/30/2010 3:02pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Apr 28, 2010 8:21pm

“I will say that I’ve never understood greed.”

Greed is not a crime. If you believe someone is greedy and don’t wish to do business with them, more power to you. Do not, however, convince the government to steal from some individual or group simply because you believe they are greedy. Stick to punishing actual crimes such as the many fraud statutes already on the books instead of inventing new subjective thought crimes.

“a fair day’s wage”

Who decides what is fair, you? 50.1% of the population? If I get enough people together with this goal, can I justifiably confiscate your property? Does it help if I come to the conclusion that you’re somehow greedy?

“Homicide is heavily regulated, but…”

You’re actually making this comparison? Unbelievable…

nmeagent 05/01/2010 10:49pm
in reply to LucasFoxx May 01, 2010 11:50am

It is merely a matter of motivation. You seem to suggest that we can and should somehow correct this perceived widespread greed with federal legislation such as this bill. Greed is not a justification for coercive legislation any more than having a surly demeanor. Greed alone is not and should not be a crime.

deborahg6 04/21/2010 6:25pm

Also, now that Goldman Sachs is in question…will the President give his $1,000,000 campaign donation back?

vlobato9817 05/20/2010 4:47pm

and the federal government grows exponentially with more bureaucracies and red tape.

pramsey 04/19/2010 8:05am
in reply to justamick Apr 19, 2010 7:25am

Amen, not to mention that the fact that Dodd and Franks are the two heads of finance commitiees (in the Senate and House respectively) that should have been able to prevent this mess in the first place. Now they are actually compounding the problem.

nmeagent 04/27/2010 3:39pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Apr 27, 2010 1:29am

Ah yes, of course that would be utterly horrible. We’d have individuals privately contracting with one another for mutual benefit without the involvement of government! What a wreck unrestrained economic liberty would do to social justice alone! My my, I’m all at sea; I’d better have a lie down.

You’ve missed my point. Explain to me how you justify implicitly blaming unbridled capitalism for the current financial crisis and the potential loss of your life savings when the government has been heavily screwing around with the financial markets for over a century.


Vote on This Bill

31% Users Support Bill

165 in favor / 362 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments