Their own studies show the main drivers of default are loan devalue, borrower credit score. Everything else is literally a rounding error. And so of course, the final doddfrank rules essentially abandon the things that actually drive default. And endless servicing requirements, again making it near impossible to foreclose. My opinion is the rule increased foreclosures last time around rather than decrease them. And the harder it is and the mission has nothing to do with financial stability. The mission is to use the the regulatory system to force prudent borrows to subsidize imprudent. We all knew the crisis was quite costly. It also will provide a cover for massive expansion and government powers. One minute. Im not even go i think to need that. So i would say and would say avoid financial cryises. I think a repeal is not enough. The presystem was broken. It was flawed. And to me one of the real flaws of doddfrank is it extends the precrisis system. The theme of doddfrank is, lets exp
Minerals for firms not only firms getting the actual hard commodities there, but also for firms well down the supply chain, who have no idea where the aluminum in the electronic parts came from. So i think its telling when a liberal law ultimately convinces the Washington Post Editorial Board that it was a bad idea, which they have come out against conflict minerals. Its time to revisit the motion all together of including immaterial disclosures in security laws. Both by legislative fiat and by the sccs own power. And republican and democratic chairmen have both been guilty of this. I think it should be a binding constraint on any rule making. And business round table stands for the proposition. How is a mandatory immaterial disclosure going to provide benefit to investors . None. By definition fails cost benefit analysis. We have ways to measure immateriality. Methodology that has gotten great in the last ten years. I think it should be a binding constraint, the same way for litigants