May 25, 2012

White House threatens to veto House budget as too stingy with CFPB, SEC funding

The Obama administration today threatened to veto a House spending plan that would limit fiscal 2012 funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Office of Management and Budget said it would recommend that the president veto a financial services spending bill that has been approved by the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee and is still making its way through Congress, The Hill reported. The House bill would limit CFPB funding to less than half the $550 million the Dodd-Frank law set as its funding, a cut that OMB said would “severely undercut” its ability to police consumer financial services.

The House bill would keep SEC funding flat in 2012, rejecting a $222 million increase requested by the White House to pay for the agency's additional Dodd-Frank responsibilities. The SEC is funded by fees that it assesses on financial transactions, and the agency now generates more in fees than it spends.

Kill Dodd-Frank, kill the economy  - The Dodd-Frank reform law is necessary to protect the U.S. economy in the future, a top Treasury Department official said today.

"Scaling back or repealing major parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, or not providing regulators with the funds they need to implement the Act, will leave our economy exposed to a cycle of collapses and crises," said Mary Miller, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets.

Miller spoke at a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association regulatory reform event to mark the July 21 one-year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Bank of America mortgage settlement  - New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is questioning Bank of America’s $8.5 billion settlement with 22 big investment funds, raising concerns that the deal may have been struck without full participation from all affected investors.

Schneiderman sent letters to BlackRock Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance, Pimco, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and 18 others asking about “participation by both your firm and clients” in the settlement over soured mortgage securities. The New York Times reported the inquiry is the latest in Schneiderman’s broader investigation in the mortgage bundling process, which has led to billions of losses for investors.

With Dodd-Frank, TBTF lives on – While the Dodd-Frank law was intended to end banks that are “too big to fail,”  the federal government could end up rescuing mega-banks once again during the next crisis, Standard & Poor’s said in a report.

The rating agency pointed to the government’s history of propping up major financial firms and said that its promises to end future bailouts are hollow. "We believe that under certain circumstances and with selected systemically important financial institutions, future extraordinary government support is still possible," S&P said.

Blowing the whistle – Cash incentives to encourage whistleblowers to report suspected fraud are on the agenda when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission meets next week.

The CFTC last November proposed a set of whistleblower rules that closely resembled the Securities and Exchange Commission’s reward plan for tipsters. The CFTC proposal would pay a whistleblower 10 to 30 percent of sanctions collected by the agency and protect the tipster from retaliation from an employer.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Shirley Gao writes for iWatch News. 

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.