Its got to be much more subtle than that. It got to be about helping each side see where there might be limited areas where they could work together. Im not the great believer in the grand bargain. Now sit down and have a discussion about every in. It is unlikely to be good but they will be some areas where people have quite significant differences and nonetheless have it limited junior level of communication which delivers from a practical benefit to both sides. We will obviously return in some detail of course and the next session. The secretary has made it very clear [inaudible] there is a general concern that we seem to lack a strategy on the full spectrum response with their business is taking them on when it comes to do social media before we even get into iraq with the iraq ema to make significant programs and indeed perhaps a more direct relationship with the kurds in trying to combat. The putting all that aside can you tell us what you would hope to achieve from participation
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
Can be accomplished [ inaudible ]. Why dont you go ahead and take it. So let me first say, i think you touch upon an important observation about too big to fail which so much relies on the discretionary decisions of government and government decision makers, whether it is the d. O. J. Or the s. E. C. There is nothing about too big to fail economists. It is by political decisions and of course when eric holder goes before congress and said that somebody is too big to jail, that reinforces that perception. And on the data point, so again i would start with data can be suggestive as best and during the crisis we saw suggestive data that the funding advantage for the largest institutions had expanded and yes that has contracted but in my opinion you would expect that to contract post crisis. I think you could compare the funding cost today versus precrisis over time. People forget before the crisis, say in 2006, the largest banks paid more to borrow than the smallest banks. It was complete
Or can we fix it . And if so how in particular . Youre about to hear how from our expert panel. Let me introduce them in the order in which theyll speak, as we proceed through the panel well be working our way through the various titles of dodd frank frank. First will be my colleague peter wallacen. He co directs aeis program on financial studies, was co chair of the pew Financial Task force and served on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission where he wrote a very enlightening and highly controversial dissent. Previously peter was White House Council to president reagan. General council of the treasury department. Financial crisis was spawned by the financial crisis spawned dodd frank, do you understand what spawned the financial crisis . Buy peters book hidden in plain sight in case you havent yet. Our second speaker senior director of Global Government Affairs strategy and Public Policy of bloomberg, where he covers policy issues in europe, asia and the u. S. Equity, fixed income,