Dodd-Frank Backers Clash With Regulator

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — John Walsh voiced the frustrations of many bankers when he warned in a speech last month that federal regulators were not paying attention to the cumulative impact of new rules and restrictions, jeopardizing the ability of banks to support economic growth.

“I might have titled these remarks, ‘Beware of the Pendulum,’ ” he said. “To put it plainly, my view is that we are in danger of trying to squeeze too much risk and complexity out of banking.”

What made the speech unusual was that Mr. Walsh is a federal regulator. In fact, he is responsible for overseeing most of the nation’s large banks. And as the text of his remarks ricocheted across the electronic landscape of official Washington, it drew a furious reaction from advocates of increased regulation, who called on the White House to replace him.

The uproar brought into public view the increasingly contentious relationship between the authors and supporters of the Dodd-Frank Act, the law passed last year to overhaul financial regulation, and Mr. Walsh, the acting comptroller of the currency, a crucial player in the work of translating the law into practice.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/business/economy/dodd-frank-backers-clash-with-currency-chief-walsh.html

[Angry Dragon]

1. It sounds as if he is unable to do his job

he should quit

and I was not aware that banks dealt in risk and complexity
i thought they made loans and let people save money

[Islandlife]

11. There are risks in making loans, but...

there are not as many risks in savings accounts.

My current mortgage was made 24 years ago and the banks required 10% down to minimize their risk. I had been employed by my then current employer for only 1 year. I was lucky to get that loan.

[xchrom]

2. Some one should fire mr Walsh. Nt

[ejpoeta]

3. squeeze too much risk and complexity out of banking?

um... i think the purpose is to make it so that regular folks can understand what they are getting into and not lose their damned shirts ASSHOLE! but i bet that's not what the financial industry wants. they like us in the dark because that way they can screw us over.

[No Elephants]

6. +1 Playing the lottery is risky. You also take your chances borrowing from a mobster.

Making a bank deposit and borrowing from a bank are not supposed to be risky.

[ejpoeta]

7. when i play the lottery, i know my chances of winning are about nil.

i don't borrow from a mobster. it seems borrowing from a bank has become on par with the damned mobster these days.

[No Elephants]

4. Didn't Mr. Walsh join Bernanke in refusing to provide info to Congress

during hearings on the funny foreclosures (funny odd, not funny ha ha).

In a speech, he advocated for a "financial safety net" for financial institutions, whatever that means--and Barney Frank asked him what he meant.

http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1429


Here's the wiki version of his "warning" of the dangers of excessive financial regulation (as if truly excessive regulation of financial institutions would ever happen anymore).

"On June 21, 2011 Walsh spoke before the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation in London, warning about the dangers of excessive financial regulation. He called it a "swinging pendulum problem" and expressed his view that "we are in danger of trying to squeeze too much risk and complexity out of banking as we institute reforms to address problems and abuses stemming from the last crisis".<4>

The following day, three senators -- Jack Reed (D-RI), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) -- called for a "fundamental rethink of the OCC's leadership" arguing that Walsh "is not interested in leading an agency charged with ensuring the safety and soundness of our financial institutions".<5>

The OCC released a statement on June 23 suggesting the senators took Walsh's speech out of context and defending the Comptroller.<6>"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Walsh

Soon after the above incident, President Obama nominated Curry of the FDIC to become permanent Comptroller. Of course, Obama could replace Walsh while Curry's nomination process is underway.


I should add that most of Walsh's wiki bio reflects government "service." Even though his bio is probably scrubbed regularly, that still reflects just how much people who are supposed to be riding herd on big business on behalf of consumers, taxpayers and the nation as a whole come to side with those they are supposed to regulate. IOW, Ain't lobbying grand?

Only with governments do the people paying ALL the bills have the least to say about an operation, especially in nations whose people ultimately behave docilely, no matter how angry they may be.

Yeah, yeah, I know. We get to choose between Frick and Frack anymore, every 2, 4 and 6 years. Whooptie frickin' do. Is it time for a general strike yet?

[MouseFitzgerald]

5. This guy doesn't seem to understand what his job is

[mulsh]

8. John Walsh "joined the agency in 2005" another Bush mole?

Really, has this administration done anything significant to rid our agencies of these Bush people. It doesn't seem to have done so in the legal or financial areas.

It sounds to me as if Mr. Walsh has important work to do in seeing that not too much reform occurs on his watch. Time to allow him to spend more time with his family. Maybe write a book

[BumRushDaShow]

9. As of 6/7/11, 233 Obama nominees have been BLOCKED in the Senate

http://www.thenation.com/blog/161179/most-important-nominations-held-gop-senators">http://www.thenation.com/blog/161179/most-important-nominations-held-gop-senators

How can he really get anyone of import into some of the most crucial positions when the repukes continue their racially-tinged temper tantrums against anything that he does?! Even crap that they themselves proposed at an earlier time but then suddenly reject because he offers it??

[No Elephants]

12. He began appointing Republicans and DINOs as soon as he got elected..

[Cool Logic]

10. Since he is a regulator, he is an expert in the vocation of red tape.

Congress has erred in its structure of legislation before. It is quite possible that there is something wrong in this as well.