It looks like the Obama administration is taking some steps in the right direction to ensure financial fiascoes like the one we’re finally emerging from never happens again. It looks as though financial regulations proposed by the president could mean simpler and smaller banks and financial institutions. In the new system, small banks wouldn’t carry the weight of the financial system and if it failed, the only way it could be saved is if it could find help from another bank or investor.

I’m glad to hear that the government is taking steps to keep something like this from happening again, because we all know how popular bailouts were when the government started handing out tens of billions of dollars to failing banks (sarcasm doesn’t always come out the best over written word, but I think many of you know that’s what I was going for).

To avoid having to do that again, President Obama’s regulatory plan is calling for large financial companies to “pay a heavy price for the system-wide risk they pose.” Under the plan, large companies like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc would face much stricter scrutiny and would be required to have more liquid assets as a buffer against a recession or another financial disaster like we have seen in the last year. Also, the banks would be required to anticipate and prepare for their own failure and would be required to draft very detailed descriptions of how to pick the company apart quickly without causing any harm to the overall financial system.

“Without banning them we’re providing some pretty heavy penalties for entering” the top group of institutions that could pose a risk to the entire financial system, said Diana Farrell, deputy director of the White House’s National Economic Council. “The regulator might say to a large institution, ‘Make sure there is very good reason to allow yourself to get that big, or that interconnected, or that complex because the penalties will wipe out any advantages, such as lower cost of capital, you might have.’”

There will be companies that have to just accept the new regulations and deal with them because to compete in the global capital market, some firms have to be large. I would guess that most would limit their size, however.

No related posts.

Flash orders give some traders an edge in the purchase or sale of their stocks. The advantage is only a split second advantage, but it is enough to get the attention of the SEC.

For the next 60 days, the change will be up for public comment and could be adopted by the SEC after that time.

Flash orders are one of those things that sometimes occurs in the trading world. They really have started to become quite a hot issue on Wall Street though due to people asking questions about fairness on the Street.

From MSNBC:
A flash order refers to certain members of exchanges — often big companies — buying and selling reports about continuing stock deals milliseconds prior to that information being made public. A number of big banks and financial companies, using high-speed PC programs, can get a speedy, sneak peep at how additional investors are trading, giving them a brief peek into the direction of the market.

The other rule on the table includes more transparency from credit rating companies. For its role in the subprime mortgage mess, the industry that performs credit ratings has been shamed. The practices of these companies (which includes Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service, as well as Fitch Ratings) will be able to be seen by the public and will also be subject to restraints.

It is not fair when some companies have the ability to trade before the general public is allowed to do so. When there are ultra high speed computers and company information and reports available, then of course they will have an small advantage. I do not believe that the flash ordering has been exactly beneficial to a lot of companies on Wall Street because if you look at how many companies have performed over the past few months and especially when you look at the last year, you can tell that they are not exactly doing great. Many of the banks and financial institutions have only remained open only by the grace of our taxpayer dollars.

I am glad that they will no longer be helped out by any of the money that I pay the government. I know that the general public of the United States is ready to go after the boards of many of these companies because of all the bonuses that they seem to be raking in every couple of months; and I have to agree with the general public on this one.

These rules can be seen at the MSNBC article I’ve linked below. I would like to see what the SEC does with the public comments over the next two months. In 60 days, we will see how the market is doing and I am sure that will have some impact on the SEC’s decision as to what it is going to do with the new rules.

Source

Today the president announced some plans that he and his administration would put into place dealing with tax loopholes and other tax shelters for U.S. companies that try to defer tax payments by keeping profits in foreign countries rather than in the company’s home country. In his proposal, President Obama also said he wanted banks to be more transparent. He was talking about banks in nations such as the Cayman Islands that are considered tax shelters to Americans.

“If financial institutions won’t cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly,” Obama said.

With the plan in place, companies wouldn’t be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad.

He also wants to do away with tax benefits that are saught by companies that outsource employees to other countries.