I'll give you one gue$$ why:
"Two years later, Dodd-Frank law is largely stalled; Faces big lobbying effort; less than a third of rules in force" by Bobby Caina Calvan | Globe Staff, July 16, 2012
WASHINGTON — Nearly two years after the signing of the landmark Dodd-Frank legislation, many of the rules meant to restore public trust in the country’s financial institutions have yet to be enacted.
Squads of lobbyists and lawyers have overwhelmed the rule-making process in minutia, blizzards of paper, and hundreds of meetings.
I hate to say I told you so, but....
As a result, government regulators have missed more than half of their rule-making deadlines, with just 120 of the 398 regulations enumerated by the law in effect, according to a tally by the Wall Street law firm Davis Polk. Key provisions are still months away, most notably the so-called “Volcker Rule” meant to rein in banks’ appetite for risky investments and prevent a repeat of the 2008 meltdown that led to the public bailout of some of the country’s largest financial institutions.
“The richest industry in the history of the world is using its vast and unlimited resources to slow, delay, gut, and weaken as many of the rules as possible,” said Dennis Kelleher, a former aide to the late Senator Edward Kennedy and the chief executive of Better Markets, a Wall Street watchdog group. “If they don’t get their way, they file suit.”
**************************************
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was a major victory for Democrats in 2010: an offensive against what they viewed as the free-wheeling culture of Wall Street.
As usual with Democraps, victory is failure.
Supporters envisioned stronger protections for consumers against predatory lenders, stricter rules for protecting bank deposits from being used for high-risk investments, and the transformation of Wall Street into a more accountable and responsible public citizen....
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! That's a good one!
--more--"
"Banks may be seeking relief from regulators on deposits; Rule changes under negotiation" August 27, 2011|By Bradley Keoun and Dakin Campbell, Bloomberg News
NEW YORK - Federal regulators have asked some banks to take more deposits from large investors even if it is unprofitable, and lenders in return are seeking relief on insurance premiums and leverage ratios, according to six people with knowledge of the talks.
Watch: Inside Job
Deposits are flooding into the biggest US banks as customers seek shelter from Europe’s debt crisis and falling stock prices. That forces lenders to raise capital for a growing balance sheet and saddles them with the higher deposit insurance payments. With short-term interest rates so low, it is hard for financial firms to reinvest the new money profitably.
Oh, the POOR, POOR BANKS that are BOOMING!
What a POS MOUTHPIECE!!!!!!
And if you have a problem with interest rates then take a look at the LIBOR.
Regulators have asked banks to take the deposits anyway, three people said, with one lender accepting $100 billion. The regulators want lenders to take the deposits because it improves the stability of the financial system, according to one of the people, who said US banks are viewed as places of strength.
Some of the largest ones have talked with regulators about softening rules for ratios that measure capital and assets, according to the people, who declined to be identified because talks are private.
At least one asked for a waiver on paying higher premiums to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which is less likely to be granted, one of the people said.
“If the helicopter comes raining money on your bank and it’s only temporarily there, it could be excessively costly and disruptive,’’ said Robert Litan, a vice president of research and policy at the Kansas City, Mo.-based Kauffman Foundation, which promotes entrepreneurial business practices.
Cash held by domestically chartered US banks, which includes Federal Reserve balances, rose to a record $1.02 trillion this month....
Sitting on over a trillion dollars and this economy is in reverse. That's mind-boggling.
The extra deposits are problematic because they are subject to withdrawal, so banks have to park the money in low-yielding short-term investments, Litan said. With few other choices available, banks have stashed their excess deposits at the Fed, which means the cash gets counted as assets.
Oh, the poor, poor banks, huh?
This expands their balance sheets and thus pushes down their leverage ratio, which measures Tier 1 capital divided by adjusted average total assets; the lower the ratio, the weaker the bank, at least in theory. In reality, regulators regard US lenders as relatively strong with sufficient capital cushions, the people said....
Yeah, they are NOT THE SAME THING -- just like the cause of the collapses of the WTC.
--more--"
