Home Mortgage

The Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on the 11th through the financial reform bill, has taken 30 years since the last century since the Great Depression of the comprehensive reform of the financial industry in the first step. However, the victory of the Democrats to bring the excitement is limited, around the contents of the reforms presented by the obvious partisan lines, as well as strong opposition from the financial sector, indicates that the reform of motion can be further clearance, there is great uncertainty. According to the White House’s thinking, credit cards, mortgage loans, personal savings, and so closely related to the consumer of financial products and services are in this new body of regulation. However, around this content, all parties had a lot of lobbying.

The opposite face of competing interests, the House version of the motion reflects the various forces on the result of a compromise.
Differences in supervisory powers over the system shows, in spite of the necessity of strengthening the supervision of systemic risk on the parties to almost no ambiguity, but who is going to implement this authority, the Congress, there is a dispute within the government. Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Ms. Bell, that the Council should be an independent person rather than the Finance Minister as its Chairman. Many experts argued that to establish a mechanism to prevent systemic risk, this mechanism must be independent of the Federal Reserve.

The current round of financial crisis has shown that a number of mega-class financial institution, once a crisis, threatening the entire system on the energy, and the Government in addition to spending taxpayer money bailouts initiator of these crises, with little more legitimate and effective means.

The original idea of the White House just let the financial industry failed to bear its own costs, but the text of the House went even further, clearly the system supervisor to adopt split, dismembered the plight of those who find themselves in major financial institutions, even those with health The large financial institutions, as long as these institutions to determine the size and scope large enough to threaten the degree of macroeconomic stability, the Government has the right to require it to sell or transfer assets.

Former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson said it can not split these large institutions, financial regulatory reform out of the question. Princeton University economist that split the large financial institutions is not feasible nor wise. He believes that the characteristics of modern finance are interrelated, globalization itself is the size and scope of financial institutions, there is a minimum requirement.