Under the Senate rules, 60 votes will be needed to bring any legislation revising Dodd-Frank to a vote. The Republicans have 51 senators and maybe 52, depending on the results of the Louisiana runoff on Dec. 10. New York’s Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate Democrats, has already said that although there are areas of common ground on Republican plans for infrastructure projects, there is no such agreement on financial regulation. So assuming the Democrats hold the line, any legislative repeal of Dodd-Frank is unlikely.
…
[So] very likely there will be a muddle. Areas where the president can act without Congress are likely to see the most change. If Mr. Trump adopts the House Republican mantra, things like the Financial Stability Oversight Board will wither. The designation of systemically important financial institutions for insurance companies will also go away.
…
If Mr. Trump adopts the House Republican mantra, things like the Financial Stability Oversight Board will wither. The designation of systemically important financial institutions for insurance companies will also go away.
…
Dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is probably a nonstarter. Given that 60 Senate votes are necessary to modify the bureau’s status, it is likely to remain. In fact, the agency’s budget is protected from Congress and the president. It can continue on its current course, at least until Mr. Trump appoints a new director in two years.
But there may be more common ground on how to deal with the big banks. This is because the proposals in the House bill concerning bank regulation are worth discussing, and the House’s changes to regulation of the big banks have credible support in reasonable quarters. For example, the bankruptcy option seems more viable than a liquidation authority that will never be used. In an op-ed article in DealBook, Professors David A. Skeel Jr. and Mark J. Roe wrote that “the core concept behind the bill — bankruptcy for banks — is sound,” noting that there it needed some tweaks to be viable, including allowing regulators to force banks into bankruptcy.
…
Even some of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposals make sense, despite being unlikely to pass. Reconstituting the agency into one like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, with commissioners appointed by the president and split among the parties, would make the agency more responsive to democratic government and better able to enact longer-lasting regulation.