sack316
07-17-2010, 07:04 PM
been trying to study what I can on these things forthcoming. And I must say, it seems to address a lot. Hell, I even have it on good authority that it even addresses person to person loans (that's right, if ya wanna loan your buddy some bucks for something, there will be some kind of legislation on the books with rules for it). Now what that rule will be, I do not know. It may even be a good thing. I can't pass opinion until I actually know what it says (which'll probably be AFTER it's all signed into law anyway).
But what I have thus far found missing, is something to address the ROOT problems of the financial crisis. Maybe somebody can help me find it, but I have yet to see anything addressing transparency for Wall Street firms and their funds. The shield of work product proprietary information will still exist, and thus leave the door open for... well same old same old.
What this means is, if ya wanna know what is in 'Super duper happy growth fund X', not all the information has to be given. i.e. could be future (or current even) toxic assets, for example. The firm would just have to say "proprietary information" and the black sheet is draped over the magic box.
It's possible I have just missed this, and if anyone can find that info for me that'd be great. But in the mean time, I don't see it... and that makes this 'reform' incomplete. As with anything, there is likely to be some good and bad things in this. But lacking language to address this very important piece of the puzzle will leave Wall Street with the loophole to remain relatively unchanged in terms of the topic here.
Sack
But what I have thus far found missing, is something to address the ROOT problems of the financial crisis. Maybe somebody can help me find it, but I have yet to see anything addressing transparency for Wall Street firms and their funds. The shield of work product proprietary information will still exist, and thus leave the door open for... well same old same old.
What this means is, if ya wanna know what is in 'Super duper happy growth fund X', not all the information has to be given. i.e. could be future (or current even) toxic assets, for example. The firm would just have to say "proprietary information" and the black sheet is draped over the magic box.
It's possible I have just missed this, and if anyone can find that info for me that'd be great. But in the mean time, I don't see it... and that makes this 'reform' incomplete. As with anything, there is likely to be some good and bad things in this. But lacking language to address this very important piece of the puzzle will leave Wall Street with the loophole to remain relatively unchanged in terms of the topic here.
Sack