Why did the BUSH SEC hold back the broker rules?

[California Girl]

This is why the right here hates me so much.

I ask the questions they cant answer

I doubt anyone cares enough to 'hate' you, drama queen. We just mock you because you're a fucking lunatic.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did the Bush SEC do that?

 

[Truthmatters]

This is why the right here hates me so much.

I ask the questions they cant answer

I doubt anyone cares enough to 'hate' you, drama queen. We just mock you because you're a fucking lunatic.

Go away if you have nothing to offer but childish insults adults are talking

 

[healthmyths]

TN Harley you can answer here

I use to be a broker. Sold mutual funds.
NO OTHER SALES position to my knowledge required the sales man to explain to the customer that 50% of the first year's payments on the contract fund was going as sales commission and the customer had to sign the form!

that's like having your sears salesman get your signature that he gets XX% of the sales!

Oh and by the way these front end load funds returned HAD higher appreciation rates BECAUSE the buyers stayed with the fund and continued to put their monthly payment. Thus the fund managers always knew a LARGER portion of their portfolio would be available contrary to NO load funds where people think they are buying stocks and buy and sell stupidly!

 

[Truthmatters]

Did you have a brokers license?

 

[healthmyths]

My point is NO other industry every required as securities sales to tell you the commissions!

The facts are
Since 1900 (end-of-year 1899), through 2010, the average total return/year of the DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average) was approximately 9.4% --
4.8% in price appreciation, plus approx 4.7% in dividends. (Some numbers won't add up due to rounding.) Observations: Average Stock Market Return Since 19xx (thru 2012)
9.4% a year !
NOTHING over 100 years approaches that.. and it could have been even better if idiots like most people on this board weren't so STUPID!

 

[California Girl]

This is why the right here hates me so much.

I ask the questions they cant answer

I doubt anyone cares enough to 'hate' you, drama queen. We just mock you because you're a fucking lunatic.

Go away if you have nothing to offer but childish insults adults are talking

Unless you own the site, you don't get to tell me where to post. Go that? Good. Thick bitch.

 

[Truthmatters]

should I report you for going off topic in the thread?

 

[Truthmatters]

Cali proves she learned nothing during her absence

 

[Truthmatters]

Shes just another brain washed con who cant answer this question so she diverts by calling childish names

 

[California Girl]

TruthMocker proves that shes learned nothing (including basic punctuation) from birth.

 

[Rocko]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

This is what we are talking about.


Go get WHY it was done.


just saying I dont know is not an answer is it

Source: Press Release: SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers; 2007-190; Sept. 19, 2007

This removed a significant barrier which had been installed under Glass-Steagall.

Nope,

The banks could not be brokers BEFORE gramm leach blialy act.


Then that law allowed banks to act as brokers and also put in place BROKER rules for them.

Then for 8 long years the Bush SEC kept the broker rules for the banks from taking effect meaning they had no oversite in the government to police their broker activities.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brokers must have a series 7 license and series 63 to operate in the state they do buisness in. I'm a former trader, I know this. You had to get licensed way before Bush and way after Bush.

 

[g5000]

Source: Press Release: SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers; 2007-190; Sept. 19, 2007

This removed a significant barrier which had been installed under Glass-Steagall.

Nope,

The banks could not be brokers BEFORE gramm leach blialy act.


Then that law allowed banks to act as brokers and also put in place BROKER rules for them.

Then for 8 long years the Bush SEC kept the broker rules for the banks from taking effect meaning they had no oversite in the government to police their broker activities.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brokers must have a series 7 license and series 63 to operate in the state they do buisness in. I'm a former trader, I know this. You had to get licensed way before Bush and way after Bush.

You could not get licensed as a broker-dealer if you were a bank. That was the whole point of Glass-Steagall.

The FSMA of 1999 (a.k.a. "Gramm-Leach-Bliley") repealed that.

Because banks could now also be broker-dealers, all new regulations had to be set up for them.

Read the SEC link I provided.

 

[Truthmatters]

Source: Press Release: SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers; 2007-190; Sept. 19, 2007

This removed a significant barrier which had been installed under Glass-Steagall.

Nope,

The banks could not be brokers BEFORE gramm leach blialy act.


Then that law allowed banks to act as brokers and also put in place BROKER rules for them.

Then for 8 long years the Bush SEC kept the broker rules for the banks from taking effect meaning they had no oversite in the government to police their broker activities.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brokers must have a series 7 license and series 63 to operate in the state they do buisness in. I'm a former trader, I know this. You had to get licensed way before Bush and way after Bush.

were you a bank broker ?

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope,

The banks could not be brokers BEFORE gramm leach blialy act.


Then that law allowed banks to act as brokers and also put in place BROKER rules for them.

Then for 8 long years the Bush SEC kept the broker rules for the banks from taking effect meaning they had no oversite in the government to police their broker activities.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brokers must have a series 7 license and series 63 to operate in the state they do buisness in. I'm a former trader, I know this. You had to get licensed way before Bush and way after Bush.

You could not get licensed as a broker-dealer if you were a bank. That was the whole point of Glass-Steagall.

The FSMA of 1999 (a.k.a. "Gramm-Leach-Bliley") repealed that.

Because banks could now also be broker-dealers, all new regulations had to be set up for them.

Read the SEC link I provided.

all true.

then the Bush SEC held back the broker rules for the newly brokering banks. Tat meant the banks were selling as brokers but had no broker rules to follow.

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue

 

[Rocko]

You don't know what you're talking about. Brokers must have a series 7 license and series 63 to operate in the state they do buisness in. I'm a former trader, I know this. You had to get licensed way before Bush and way after Bush.

You could not get licensed as a broker-dealer if you were a bank. That was the whole point of Glass-Steagall.

The FSMA of 1999 (a.k.a. "Gramm-Leach-Bliley") repealed that.

Because banks could now also be broker-dealers, all new regulations had to be set up for them.

Read the SEC link I provided.

all true.

then the Bush SEC held back the broker rules for the newly brokering banks. Tat meant the banks were selling as brokers but had no broker rules to follow.

Listen, if you sell securities, whether you work in bank or not, you have to get licensed and you're regulated by FINRA. Yes I do have a license.

 

[Rocko]

Nope,

The banks could not be brokers BEFORE gramm leach blialy act.


Then that law allowed banks to act as brokers and also put in place BROKER rules for them.

Then for 8 long years the Bush SEC kept the broker rules for the banks from taking effect meaning they had no oversite in the government to police their broker activities.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brokers must have a series 7 license and series 63 to operate in the state they do buisness in. I'm a former trader, I know this. You had to get licensed way before Bush and way after Bush.

You could not get licensed as a broker-dealer if you were a bank. That was the whole point of Glass-Steagall.

The FSMA of 1999 (a.k.a. "Gramm-Leach-Bliley") repealed that.

Because banks could now also be broker-dealers, all new regulations had to be set up for them.

Read the SEC link I provided.

She's saying the brokers at banks didn't need to be licensed and were'nt regulated by anyone.

 

[g5000]

She's saying the brokers at banks didn't need to be licensed and were'nt regulated by anyone.

Yes, I know. I am getting to that.

 

[g5000]

It has been a while since I read the FSMA and the CFMA. However, the FSMA (a.k.a. GLB) was given a kick in the ass toward passage when Citicorp merged with Travelers Group. This totally violated Glass-Steagall. And, as usual in modern times, the government did nothing about it. In fact, the government decided to accomodate this totally illegal merger by making it legal with the FSMA in 1999.

To say the broker-dealers were able to operate without any rules for eight years after that point is incorrect. The broker-dealers already existed, and were already regulated. The rules that had to be written were those which said who was allowed to be a broker dealer. The existing rules for broker-dealers were not eliminated by the FSMA.

I did post a unanimous SEC ruling made in 2004 which did waive net reserve requirements for the five biggest broker-dealers at the beginning of this topic. And that one ruling cost us way more than what Fannie and Freddie did. But that's another subject. I thought that was what this topic was going to be about.

Anyway...

Since the old rules forbade certain entities from offering broker dealer services, the FSMA said that some entities which had been forbidden would now be allowed. It took eight years to nail down who was allowed to be a broker dealer. It did not mean those broker dealers out there who were up and running were running unregulated.