Dodd-Frank turns four today. Proponents marketed the law as the response to the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, even though it included many unrelated items and left out many matters central to the crisis. It is not surprising that four years later, Dodd-Frank is still flawed. A recent poll conducted on behalf of Better Markets found that sixty percent of the respondents support "stricter federal regulation on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business." Only ten percent of survey respondents think the federal government is doing a good job regulating the financial industry using the powers it has already, so additional authority for the government is not the answer. A more effective approach would be to allow the markets to do what they do best--allocate resources to their most productive use and punish firms that are not delivering products and services that people want and need at prices they are willing to pay. Government regulations often impede these healthy market functions. An intense government regulatory regime, such as the one embodied in Dodd-Frank, comes with deep government relationships with large financial institutions and implicit or explicit guarantees that the government will be there to clean up those firms' meeses. Taxpayers bear the cost of this regulatory regime, but so do the consumers and Main Street companies that financial markets are supposed to serve.
Dodd-Frank at Four
- Dodd-Frank: A Success Story?
- Conflict Minerals Conflict Continues
- Richard Epstein: The Improbable Fate of the Durbin Amendment
- CFTC's Aimless Budgeting
- Dodd-Frank's Central Risk-Takers
- Is Volcker the New FCPA?
- CFTC's Latest Invitation to Court
- 100 Days at the SEC
- Banking on Wind
- New Column by Walter Olson: SEC Unveils Expensive Rule on CEO Pay Ratio
- SEC Steps Further Away from Its Mission
- Unaccountable CFPB Avoids Court Scrutiny
- Court Demands Durbin Rewrite
- SEC Wins its Latest Conflict
Center for Legal Policy at the