Dodd-Frank
Policy Analysis
As a regulatory, substantive, collective public policy, the Dodd-Frank Act increases the requirement in transparency and information disclosure, and tells the public what the government intends to do on the purpose of promoting the financial stability and protect customers. Public goods are given all, without any doubt, which is the paramount goal in passing the Act, just as specified by the law that “to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices”.
The essence of the Dodd-Frank is liberal——the state means to do something to manage challenges. For example, before the financial crisis, too little capital restored in the banks led to the inability to tackle …show more content…
The creation of FSOC plays an important intermediate role in coordinating regulators. It makes more effective for regulators to cooperate with one another. When government failure happens again, through FSOC, other regulators are able to, in a timely manner, react to the neglect of certain regulators. And the reality also reveals that with the progress of enforcement, the financial environment is much safer than before. In this way, the objective to promote financial stability approaches to be realized. However, owing to the establishment of new agencies and redistributing the authority of existing financial regulators, the overlapping of function of regulatory bodies, to some degree, may do harm to the efficiency of regulation. For instance, the Fed, OCC, FDIC and state banking supervisors are all responsibility for the depository and lending activity. And SEC and CFTC are both charged with the derivative products. Therefore, subsequent legislature should pay attention to draw a line among regulatory …show more content…
It could be effective and correct or corrupting and disruptive. Note that, with the reinforcement of the government intervention in the market, how to prevent the public authority, namely the public power, from affecting on the normal operation of the market is worth attention in the long term. It could cause the corruption and bribery when public power enters into the market. In this way, how to regulate the power of government should be on the agenda. Specifically, the head of BCFP, who is appointed by the president, owns the substantial power and there is no direct checks and balances exist. That would be discretionary for him or her to use the power. The future should take care of control the power owned by the
As a regulatory, substantive, collective public policy, the Dodd-Frank Act increases the requirement in transparency and information disclosure, and tells the public what the government intends to do on the purpose of promoting the financial stability and protect customers. Public goods are given all, without any doubt, which is the paramount goal in passing the Act, just as specified by the law that “to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices”.
The essence of the Dodd-Frank is liberal——the state means to do something to manage challenges. For example, before the financial crisis, too little capital restored in the banks led to the inability to tackle …show more content…
The creation of FSOC plays an important intermediate role in coordinating regulators. It makes more effective for regulators to cooperate with one another. When government failure happens again, through FSOC, other regulators are able to, in a timely manner, react to the neglect of certain regulators. And the reality also reveals that with the progress of enforcement, the financial environment is much safer than before. In this way, the objective to promote financial stability approaches to be realized. However, owing to the establishment of new agencies and redistributing the authority of existing financial regulators, the overlapping of function of regulatory bodies, to some degree, may do harm to the efficiency of regulation. For instance, the Fed, OCC, FDIC and state banking supervisors are all responsibility for the depository and lending activity. And SEC and CFTC are both charged with the derivative products. Therefore, subsequent legislature should pay attention to draw a line among regulatory …show more content…
It could be effective and correct or corrupting and disruptive. Note that, with the reinforcement of the government intervention in the market, how to prevent the public authority, namely the public power, from affecting on the normal operation of the market is worth attention in the long term. It could cause the corruption and bribery when public power enters into the market. In this way, how to regulate the power of government should be on the agenda. Specifically, the head of BCFP, who is appointed by the president, owns the substantial power and there is no direct checks and balances exist. That would be discretionary for him or her to use the power. The future should take care of control the power owned by the