[WestCoastFunding]

Would kind of think the term would be implode not explode. And Lehman was a mark to market implosion. Stupid rule, where are they now? Even Bernie Madoff would be whole by now. Too big to fail is true..where is AIG now? Redistribution of wealth as always, what we are about (the US)? Mark to market is good for regulators and buyers, great reason to move markets as is all the hoopla. Where after bailouts are most of those companies now, Oh gosh is the DOW lower???

"Implode" implies that the damage is contained to one entity. When a company's meltdown affects an entire industry, creates a commercial paper blowout, and causes the economy to go into a "sudden stop" it's an explosion. You don't get massive collateral damage like that from and "implosion". Save that term for the CAN Capital types.

[WestCoastFunding]

Instead of you guys complaining about the brave few who object to massive regulation when you do not know whats coming if it happened.

Weird that your qualify your comment with "massive regulation" as if anyone on here is advocating "massive" regulation. Seems like a bit of a straw man.

[John Galt]

seriously, the markets recovered and redistributed. So did most companies. Entity was dollars. Was only a hiccup, lol. Can was a bad management issue like Mother Merryl, BOA, Levine, Boesky and Milken. Economies change. Anyone with a lowly series 7 will tell you mother Merryl is on the test....lol. Not meaning to be pompous, but come on, way old news. We all watched the money markets dive...most knew we couldn't support the fictitious market we were having but we all participated and took the money anyway.

[WestCoastFunding]

seriously, the markets recovered and redistributed. So did most companies. Entity was dollars. Was only a hiccup, lol. Can was a bad management issue like Mother Merryl, BOA, Levine, Boesky and Milken. Economies change. Anyone with a lowly series 7 will tell you mother Merryl is on the test....lol. Not meaning to be pompous, but come on, way old news. We all watched the money markets dive...most knew we couldn't support the fictitious market we were having but we all participated and took the money anyway.

Do you understand how bad your argument is when you're admitting the market was "fictitious" while also arguing against regulations?

And do you normally call the worst financial crisis in 80 years that essentially led to a global depression to be a "hiccup"?

I mean: come on.

[WestCoastFunding]

west coast ..."toothless" is a good word.

So you're cheering something you admit is "toothless"? Makes total sense.

I am not going to keep debating regulation because no matter what anyone says I am against it.

So you're unable to articulate your stance? Or just automatically, reflexively and dogmatically are against any and all regulation?

Bottom line. I am from wall st ( meaning born and raised) and you want me to not like"speculation",

Not a single person has made a case against "speculation". What was mentioned was whether banks should be able to speculate with customer deposits. No reason to conflate the two.

[jotucker1983]

I just find it funny that there's this notion that if you put checks/balances in place, this is guaranteed to lead to massive over-regulation that stifles business activity because, the regulators are "all evil", thus, let's continue operating with no checks/balances in place.

It's like a minority that lives on the bad side of Chicago (where thugs are shooting up folks like it's the damn Vietnam War) saying let's not bring in more law enforcement because, "all law enforcement officials are evil", and it will lead to tyranny.

Has anybody ever heard of a word called, "Balance" lol? It's where we can implement the right levels of law and order, checks and balances, industry regulation, etc., in such a way to decrease/eliminate the mass amount of foul play, while not stifling honest, credible, and productive, activity.

That's the "common sense" solution and my proposal has always been that we as an industry take a pro-active role alongside state regulators to draft said solution. I mean come on:

- How does it makes sense for our industry to not do any background checks, not require any certifications, and not have any checks/balances in place, for individuals we hire who are going out and collecting SSN, DOB, bank accounts, tax returns, and other sensitive information of merchants?

- How does it makes sense to not require a lender/funder and a broker to disclose themselves in the marketplace, where there's no broker running around acting like a funder/lender?

- How does it makes sense to not have anything in place to punish employees, brokers, or funder/lenders who steal deals?

- How does it makes sense to not have anything in place to punish brokers or funders/lenders who steal/don't pay commissions that are due?

- How does it make sense to not have some level of limits on stacking to where a percentage of a merchant's monthly gross isn't dedicated solely to cash advance related payments?

- How does it make sense to not have some "truth in advancing" where all costs, fees, etc. of an advance deal are clearly explained to the merchant upfront?

[Happy Horse Shit]

Happy Horse **** is the type of guy that if you asked him who he thinks will win the Superbowl between the Pats and Falcons, he'll start off with "You know, back in 1969 the Jets won the Superbowl. The Jets had a quarterback named Joe Namath. Joe Namath went to college in Alabama and..."

Look it up. Then you might..and i say might understand what money is used for speculative bets inside banks prior to the Dodd Frank laws---The FDIC is very restrictive on how insured money can be used by banks.

[WestCoastFunding]

Look it up. Then you might..and i say might understand what money is used for speculative bets inside banks prior to the Dodd Frank laws---The FDIC is very restrictive on how insured money can be used by banks.

SEC:

"Statement on the Volcker Rule: Reducing Systemic Risk By Banning Excessive Proprietary Trading with Depositors’ Money"

http://www.sec.gov/News/PublicStmt/D.../1370540478214

Feel free to lecture the SEC while repeating the same boilerplate nonsense over and over again.

[Happy Horse Shit]

SEC:

"Statement on the Volcker Rule: Reducing Systemic Risk By Banning Excessive Proprietary Trading with Depositors’ Money"

http://www.sec.gov/News/PublicStmt/D.../1370540478214

Feel free to lecture the SEC while repeating the same boilerplate nonsense over and over again.

The Securities and Exchange Commission regulates securities, not FDIC funds (Cash and cash equivalent is not a security). The FDIC regulates what FDIC deposits can used for. I suggest you look at the link here that has very detailed rules of what and when FDIC funds can be used within a "BANK" (by the way the SEC does not regulate banks, (Comptroller of the currency (OCC) and the office of thirft supervision (OTS) and various other state agencies are the banking regulators) --just to break it down for you the FDIC allows those funds to be used when trading Govt securities and making markets. The prohibition list is long and includes just about everything else. Including hedge funds
https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/law...2000-7350.html

[WestCoastFunding]

Do you actually have a point to make, or just trying to filibuster? You get caught making poorly-informed comments and then try to change the subject in hopes that no one will remember how poorly-informed your previous comment was.

Keep moving goal posts if you must.

[John Galt]

What I said was it was a redistribution of wealth. If the mark to market rule was not in place, eventually the markets would have returned after the bubble went. It's not the first crisis the US saw but it was the largest in scale. Lots predicted it, a lot made a real good profit. I don't think Dodd did much, the market did it as it always eventually prices things correctly. Whether it was AIG or Equity Funding or Enron or FSLIC. Prices go up, prices go down. Banks learned to keep properties off the market to cause a supply and demand issue rather than wholesale forclosure sales and save their capital which was bailed out anyway. Buy, sell who can tell. Always the same. It is a market fueled by crisis and media so it's fictitious. Their are plenty of examples of Countries going out of business, we got bailed out by another fictitious item, dollars that we can print plenty of.

[John Galt]

What does SEC have to do with banks? Other than reg t or reg U?

[WestCoastFunding]

What I said was it was a redistribution of wealth. If the mark to market rule was not in place, eventually the markets would have returned after the bubble went. It's not the first crisis the US saw but it was the largest in scale. Lots predicted it, a lot made a real good profit. I don't think Dodd did much, the market did it as it always eventually prices things correctly. Whether it was AIG or Equity Funding or Enron or FSLIC. Prices go up, prices go down. Banks learned to keep properties off the market to cause a supply and demand issue rather than wholesale forclosure sales and save their capital which was bailed out anyway. Buy, sell who can tell. Always the same. It is a market fueled by crisis and media so it's fictitious. Their are plenty of examples of Countries going out of business, we got bailed out by another fictitious item, dollars that we can print plenty of.

Oh sure, let's blame the entire financial crisis on an accounting measure. Come on now.

Can we please refrain from alternative facts and Alex Jones economics.

[WestCoastFunding]

The Federal Reserve already crushed the nonsensical theory that mark-to-market caused the crisis:

"Capital destruction was due to deterioration in loan portfolios and was further depleted by items such as proprietary trading losses and common stock dividends. These are a result of lending practices and the actions of bank management, not accounting rules."

https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Do...DF/qau1001.pdf

[John Galt]

Then why did all markets recover so fast? More like Keynesian economics not infowars. Howard Ruff and James Sinclair were right. Fed speaks out of both sides as always, had to cover itself. Rates artificially low. Frank wanted everybody to own a house. No docs etc.
PS: Alternative facts are where the US is now anyway. Makes cents....lol. Von Mises was right.

[WestCoastFunding]

Would kind of think the term would be implode not explode. And Lehman was a mark to market implosion. Stupid rule, where are they now? Even Bernie Madoff would be whole by now. Too big to fail is true..where is AIG now? Redistribution of wealth as always, what we are about (the US)? Mark to market is good for regulators and buyers, great reason to move markets as is all the hoopla. Where after bailouts are most of those companies now, Oh gosh is the DOW lower???

Von Mises? I generally don't take seriously people that get their economic ideas from Lew Rockwell and the black helicopter crowd that stashes gold bullion in their Idaho bunkers while stressing about fluoride in the water and FEMA camps.

[fisheMS]

Von Mises? I generally don't take seriously people that get their economic ideas from Lew Rockwell and the black helicopter crowd that stashes gold bullion in their Idaho bunkers while stressing about fluoride in the water and FEMA camps.

damn you mean there's someone else left on this forum who doesn't get all their stock advice from zerohedge...shocking

[John Galt]

First job on WS was a commodities broker so grew up within the metals complexes (Gold especially)before going legitimate and becoming a stock broker, manager etc. I don't do the black helicopter bit but believe the US is in for a rude awakening. Don't do Rockwell but background from Columbia was economics and Von Mises was statutory for Praxeology (the study of choice and human action) even though he was born in 1881 and considered one of the most eminent liberal thinkers of the 20th century. Every one has their own theories on economics methinks but most don't listen to fedspeak because their lips are moving. Mises was just like Ayn Rand's theories, or Eric Blair in his pen name, yet they are still valued 70 years later. And most stock brokers still quote Mises. Mises thought the abandonment of free trade caused the 2 world wars.

[WestCoastFunding]

I can only think of one country that followed Austrian economics to a tee, and that would be the Somalia. I would rather not base our models off of theirs.

[John Galt]

Didn't say anyone should follow Austria, just that mark to market was bad rule causing a lot of unnecessary pain. Bubbles implode, just a redistribution of wealth. And Hayek won a Nobel.

[WestCoastFunding]

Didn't say anyone should follow Austria, just that mark to market was bad rule causing a lot of unnecessary pain. Bubbles implode, just a redistribution of wealth.

Listen, I'm going to agree that mark-to-market doesn't make sense during a crisis, because it's hard to get a fair value for your condo when the building is burning down. Therefore, during crisis it's perfectly fine to suspend M2M. But M2M didn't affect the great majority of balance sheets, as the overwhelming majority didn't have M2M apply because of classification.

[John Galt]

But when rates are unsustainably low, we are causing our own crisis. Reject the legitimacy of any attempt to regulate. There's nothing that can go wrong. Didn't you see Westworld? These mistakes distort markets. It's the theory of malinvestment.

[WestCoastFunding]

But when rates are unsustainably low, we are causing our own crisis. Reject the legitimacy of any attempt to regulate. There's nothing that can go wrong. Didn't you see Westworld? These mistakes distort markets. It's the theory of malinvestment.

I'll be the first to agree that rates were kept way too low for way too long.

[John Galt]

Same theory, regulation distorts markets. Regulation will cause people to think this (MCAs) is a legitimate primary market, not the market of last resort and that will create more "hiccups". Let the cowboys close down and the perennial stackers realize you shouldn't have 20 credit cards unless you can pay the bills. Dodd didn't help anyone. The market corrected itself. Not everyone can afford another home or continue to monetize it. There will always be captains and always be mates. Cans of the world need to close down, I don't think a regulator would see that. Bad ISOs just like funding companies go down since most of the profit is on renewals and they won't have many. There are some legitimate ISOs out there that follow a code of conduct. Anyway nuff said.

[CreditGuy]

The EO doesn't say anything about repealing Dodd-Frank. In fact, it doesn't say anything about D-F at all. Here's the meat of the EO:

Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of my Administration to regulate the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the following principles of regulation, which shall be known as the Core Principles:
(a) empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;
(b) prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;
(c) foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry;
(d) enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets;
(e) advance American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings;
(f) make regulation efficient, effective, and appropriately tailored; and
(g) restore public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework.

Sec. 2. Directive to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the heads of the member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and shall report to the President within 120 days of the date of this order (and periodically thereafter) on the extent to which existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies promote the Core Principles and what actions have been taken, and are currently being taken, to promote and support the Core Principles. That report, and all subsequent reports, shall identify any laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies that inhibit Federal regulation of the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the Core Principles.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

Section 2 basically says: Take 6 months and review where we are with financial regulations within the ideals set forth is Section 1 and report back to me.

Section 3 says: This isn't meant to change any laws or create new regulation. Any changes still have to go through Congress.

It's pretty obvious that nobody commenting in this thread thus far (except West Coast Funding) actually read the EO and instead took the bait as it was breathlessly reported by the news outlets. You're what's wrong with America. Good job!