ドッド＝フランク・ウォール街改革・消費者保護法
The SEC is mandated to create rules that address potential conflict materials (e.g. blood diamonds) and to assess whether materials originating in or near the Democratic Republic of the Congo are benefiting armed groups in the area.
The Secretary of State and Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development are required to develop a strategy to address the linkages between human rights abuses, armed groups, mining of conflict minerals, and commercial products, and promoted peace and security in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
An industry group has complained that the legislation goes beyond voluntary industry initiative such as the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.
The United Nations Security Council committee charged with overseeing conflict minerals issues reported that this legislation was a "catalyst" for efforts to save lives by cutting off a key source of funding for armed groups.
Requires the SEC to report on mine safety by gathering information on violations of health or safety standards, citations and orders issued to mine operators, number of flagrant violations, value of fines, number of mining-related fatalities, etc., to determine whether there is a pattern of violations.
The 1934年証券取引所法 is amended to require disclosure of payments relating to the acquisition of licenses for exploration, production, etc., where "payment" includes fees, production entitlements, bonuses, and other material benefits. The act states in SEC. 1504 (3) that these documents will be made available online to the public.
The Comptroller General is commissioned to assess the relative independence, effectiveness, and expertise of presidentially appointed inspectors general and inspectors general of federal entities.
The FDIC is instructed to conduct a study to evaluate:
the definition of core deposits for the purpose of calculating the insurance premiums of banks;
the potential impact on the Deposit Insurance Fund of revising the definitions of brokered deposits and core deposits to better distinguish between them;
an assessment of the differences between core deposits and brokered deposits and their role in the economy and banking sector
the potential stimulative effect on local economies of redefining core deposits; and
the competitive parity between large institutions and community banks that could result from redefining core deposits.
A Section 1256 Contract refers to a section of the 1256 that described tax treatment for any regulated futures contract, foreign currency contract or non-equity option. To calculate capital gains or losses, these trades have traditionally been marked to market on the last business day of the year. A "section 1256 contract" shall not include:
any securities futures contract or option on such a contract unless such contract or option is a dealer securities futures contract
swap form of a derivative, such as interest rate swaps, currency swaps, etc.
Senator Chris Dodd, who co-proposed the legislation, has classified the legislation as "sweeping, bold, comprehensive, [and] long overdue". In regards to the Fed and what he regarded as their failure to protect consumers, Dodd voiced his opinion that "[…] I really want the Federal Reserve to get back to its core enterprises […] We saw over the last number of years when they took on consumer protection responsibilities and the regulation of bank holding companies, it was an abysmal failure. So the idea that we're going to go back and expand those roles and functions at the expense of the vitality of the core functions that they're designed to perform is going in the wrong way." However, Dodd pointed out that the transfer of powers from the Fed to other agencies should not be construed as criticism of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, but rather that "[i]t's about putting together an architecture that works."
With regards to the lack of bipartisan input on the legislation, Dodd alleged that had he put together a "[…] bipartisan compromise, I think you make a huge mistake by doing that. You're given very few moments in history to make this kind of a difference, and we're trying to do that." Put another way, Dodd construed the lack of Republican amendments as a sign "[…] that the bill is a strong one."
Richard Shelby, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and the one who proposed the changes to the Fed governance, voiced his reasons for why he felt the changes needed to be made: "It's an obvious conflict of interest […] It's basically a case where the banks are choosing or having a big voice in choosing their regulator. It's unheard of." Democratic Senator Jack Reed agreed, saying "The whole governance and operation of the Federal Reserve has to be reviewed and should be reviewed. I don't think we can just assume, you know, business as usual."
Barney Frank, who has proposed his own legislative package of financial reforms in the House, did not comment on the Stability Act directly, but rather indicated that he was pleased that reform efforts were happening at all – "Obviously the bills aren't going to be identical, but it confirms that we are moving in the same direction and reaffirms my confidence that we are going to be able to get an appropriate, effective reform package passed very soon."
During a Senate Republican press conference on April 21, 2010, Richard Shelby reported that he and Dodd were meeting "every day", and were attempting to forge a bipartisan bill. Shelby also expressed his optimism that a "good bill" will be reached, and that "we're closer than ever." Saxby Chambliss echoed Shelby's sentiments, saying "I feel exactly as Senator Shelby does about the Banking Committee negotiations.", but voiced his concern about maintaining an active derivatives market and not drive financial firms overseas. Kay Bailey Hutchison indicated her desire to see state banks have access to the Fed, while Orrin Hatch had concerns over transparency, and the lack of Fannie and Freddy reform.
Ed Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, regarded the reforms as haphazard and dangerous, saying "To some degree, it looks like they're just blowing up everything for the sake of change […] [i]f this were to happen, the regulatory system would be in chaos for years. You have to look at the real-world impact of this."
Some experts have argued that the Dodd–Frank Act isn't strong enough, arguing that it fails to protect consumers adequately, and, more importantly, does not end too big to fail.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) — the "top Wall Street lobby" — has expressed support for the law, and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it in order to prevent a stronger law from passing.
Law professor and bankruptcy expert David Skeel concluded that the law has two major themes which are "government partnership with the largest Wall Street banks and financial institutions" and "a system of ad hoc interventions by regulators that are divorced from basic rule-of-law constraints". While he states that "the overall pattern of the legislation is disturbing", he also concludes that some are clearly helpful, such as the derivatives exchanges and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Continental European scholars have also discussed the necessity of far-reaching banking reforms in light of the current crisis of confidence, recommending the adoption of binding regulations that would go further than the Dodd–Frank Act—notably in France where SFAF and World Pensions Council (WPC) banking experts have argued that, beyond national legislations, such rules should be adopted and implemented within the broader context of separation of powers in European Union law. This perspective has gained ground after the unraveling of the Libor scandal in July 2012, with mainstream opinion leaders such as the フィナンシャル・タイムズ editorialists calling for the adoption of an EU-wide "Glass Steagall II"
On April 21, 2010, the 議会予算局(CBO) released a cost-estimate of enacting the legislation. In its introduction, the CBO briefly discussed the legislation and then went on to generally state that it is unable to assess the cost of financial crises under current law, and added that estimating the cost of similar crises under this legislation (or other proposed ideas) is equally (and inherently) difficult: "[…] CBO has not determined whether the estimated costs under the Act would be smaller or larger than the costs of alternative approaches to addressing future financial crises and the risks they pose to the economy as a whole."
In terms of the impact on the federal budget, the CBO estimates that deficits would reduce between 2011–2020, but largely in part due to the risk-based assessment fees levied to initially capitalize the Orderly Liquidation Fund; after which, the majority of revenue for the fund would be drawn primarily from interest payments. Due to this, the CBO projects that eventually the money being paid into the Fund (in the form of fees) would be exceeded by the expenses of the Fund itself. Additionally, the CBO points out that the reclassification of collected fees by various government agencies has the effect of boosting revenue.
The cost estimate also raises questions about the time-frame of capitalizing the Fund – their estimate took the projected value of fees collected for the Fund (and interest collected on the Fund) weighed against the expected expense of having to deal with corporate default(s) until 2020. Their conclusion was it would take longer than 10 years to fully capitalize the Fund (at which point they estimated it would be approximately 45 billion), although no specifics beyond that were expressed.
The projection was a $5 billion or more deficit increase in at least one of the ten-year periods starting in 2021.
An editorial in ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル speculated that the law would make it more expensive for startups to raise capital and create new jobs; other opinion pieces suggest that such an impact would be due to a reduction in fraud or other misconduct. Complying with the statute seems to have resulted in job shifting or job creation in the business of fulfilling reporting requirements, while making it more difficult to fire employees who report criminal violations. Opponents of the Dodd-Frank Law believe that it will affect job creation, in a sense that because of stricter regulation unemployment will increase significantly. However, the Office of Management and Budget attempts to “monetize" benefits versus costs to prove the contrary. The result is a positive relationship where benefits exceed costs: “During a 10-year period OMB reviewed 106 major regulations for which cost and benefit data were available [...] $136 billion to $651 billion in annual benefits versus $44 billion to $62 billion in annual costs" (Shapiro and Irons, 2011, p. 8).
Associated Press reported that in response to the costs that the legislation places on banks, some banks have ended the practice of giving their customers free checking.
In July, 2012, The Competitive Enterprise Institute joined the State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, and the 60 Plus Association as plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit, filed on July 21, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks the court to invalidate the law. Plaintiffs argue that the law gives the federal government unprecedented, unchecked power. The lawsuit was amended on September 20, 2012 to include as plaintiffs the states of Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Michigan. PDF The states are asking the court to review the constitutionality of the Orderly Liquidation Authority established under Title II of Dodd-Frank.