First, let’s look at what this guy is saying.

May 28, 2018 - 11:00 AM EDT
Dodd-Frank rollback will reinvigorate Main Street
BY ALFREDO ORTIZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

*

Last week, Congress passed long-overdue legislation to free community banks from the vice grip of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations that passed in 2010. This will increase access to credit for small businesses across the country, reinvigorating Main Streets and communities that - even in today's strong economy - are still recovering from the Great Recession.

The legislation, which passed with bipartisan support, includes a number of provisions to address the most damaging aspects of Dodd-Frank. Most notably, it raises the asset threshold above which banks are subject to onerous Dodd-Frank regulations to $250 billion from $50 billion. Only the 12 biggest banks in the nation meet this higher asset threshold, less than one-third of the current number.

The bill also exempts the smallest banks - those with less than $10 billion in assets - from the Volcker rule, which restricts banks from speculative trading. These banks also will be free from burdensome reporting requirements on their borrowers.

*

While big banks engage in exotic financial instruments, which may exacerbate or even contribute to financial crises, small banks make the vanilla loans that are responsible for, say, the new downtown arenas, restaurants and sporting good stores across rural America. Big banks use algorithms to make their lending decisions; small banks depend on personal relationships and a strong handshake to make theirs.

Yet the compliance costs associated with Dodd-Frank disrupted small banks. Research out of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve found that hiring just two compliance employees to adhere to its regulations makes one-third of small banks unprofitable. For other banks, loan compliance software can cost more than the profit from the loan.

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/389466-dodd-frank-rollback-will-reinv...

Here, in my opinion, are just few examples on how false this is. I’m not a banker nor do I work in the banking industry, but I do understand bullshit perfectly well.

So hiring 2 people to monitor a banks compliance with the law is enough to kill off the bank? And these banks have up to 10 billion dollars in assets? That’s insane. Hire one then. But guess what. These numbers aren’t based on banks with 10 billion in assets. They’re fudging the numbers based on figures for banks with less than 1 billion dollars in assets. But even at a paltry 1 billion dollars, I would think that if a bank is on such shaky financial ground that paying 2 people or even just one person to ensure the bank is following the rules and regulations of the banking industry will cause its closure, maybe it’s too shaky to be in business in the first place. And there are 2 problems that I see with this ‘finding’.

FIRST: the Mpls Fed Reserve bases it’s numbers and results on applying their bullshit theory to banks with LESS THAN 1 billion dollars in assets not 10 billion.

Quantifying the Costs of Additional Regulation on Community Banks

*

Our Approach to Quantifying the Cost of Additional Regulation

We model the effect of incremental regulatory costs by assuming that community banks will need to hire additional staff. We examine this effect on banks that have been in existence for five or more years and have assets less than $1 billion, slightly more than 5,400 banks as of year-end 2012.

We group banks into asset-based cohorts. We require only two additional inputs:
the number of staff each bank will hire and
the compensation of these staff.

We then reduce the reported net income from year-end 2012 for each firm by the estimated increase in total compensation costs. Finally, we measure the corresponding changes in the distribution of return on assets (ROA) within each size cohort.

In order to preserve the simplicity of our approach, we do not model the impact of higher compensation expenses on bank income taxes. We simply apply the additional expenses as “below-the-line” adjustments to reported net income. This process overstates the effect on bank profitability by not taking into account the reduction in income taxes that would occur.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/economic-policy-papers/quantifyi...

SECOND: Those salary figures they throw around are false. You know what JP Morgan pays a compliance analyst per year?

All figures come from

Glass Door
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/compliance-analyst-salary-SRCH_KO0,18...

Compliance Analyst
J.P. Morgan
$51,675/yr
Range: $40K - $65K

How about Goldman Sachs?

Compliance Analyst
Goldman Sachs
$xx,xxx/yr
Range: $45K - $71K

And Deutsche Bank

Deutsche Bank
Compliance Analyst
Deutsche Bank
$xx,xxx/yr
Range: $60K - $80K

In fact, the AVERAGE pay for a regulatory compliance analyst is

Average Base Pay
$56,759/yr.

That figure includes some of the biggest financial companies in the US.

And finally, the author of this crap article.

Alfredo Ortiz is president and CEO of the Job Creators Network, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to educate and protect the 85 million people who depend on the success of small businesses. He has testified before legislative committees about the impact of taxation and regulation on small business growth and speaks frequently to business organizations.

Well , who runs this Job Creators Network?

Who Funds This New Small Business-Group? Hint: Mostly Not Small Businesses

*

If the Job Creators Network is, as it describes itself, the “voice of small business,” then that voice is keyed to a specific pitch. The group has raised its profile significantly in the last year. Unlike industry trade associations, but like many other groups that claim to represent small businesses broadly, the Network is organized more around principles than interests. Bernard Marcus, a founder and former CEO of Home Depot, organized the group, then called the Job Creators Alliance, in 2010 to, according to the group’s very first tax return, “bring together job creators from large and small companies to educate Americans on the vital role of free enterprise and entrepreneurship in creating jobs, spurring innovation and ensuring America’s economic success.”

Marcus, ranked 441 on Forbes’s global list of billionaires, “is sure that if he tried to recreate the success of the Home Depot today, given regulatory environment of the last eight years, it would be impossible,” says Alfredo Ortiz, the network’s CEO. Marcus seeded the group with half a million dollars, half of its total revenue for that first year. Herman Cain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, has identified himself as a co-founder of the network, though Ortiz downplays Cain’s role and insists he is not affiliated with the organization.

Where other organizations lobby quietly to influence specific legislation or government policies, or politick on behalf of specific candidates, the Network (which is technically two separate legal entities, the Job Creators Network and the Job Creators Network Foundation) mounts a public defense of lower taxes and less regulation. As part of that mission, it develops “educational materials” that owners can give to employees, including links to a dedicated website. “What we did was create these educational materials that were easy to talk about, easy to share, and get these employers to have these conversations about how policies impact their livelihoods,” Ortiz says. Elaine Parker, president of the foundation, adds, “this is what Bernie was doing at Home Depot. He took time to talk to his employees about what was going on in D.C. and the challenges facing the company and what the headwinds were.”

But the group spends most of its resources identifying and recruiting entrepreneurs and executives to serve as spokespeople for free markets, and then sends them out into the media landscape, either in advertisements or, preferably, op-eds and TV appearances. “These are real job creators who are advocating on behalf of free enterprise in the media, and they bring great credibility as real job creators,” says Ortiz.

At the very least, it adds one more voice to the chorus, or creates the impression of a bigger chorus. It has partnered with almost a hundred other national, state, and even local lobbying groups. In Colorado, for example, it weighed in against a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage. “We help to provide a megaphone,” says Ortiz. (Voters approved the measure anyway.)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/robbmandelbaum/2017/08...

I am so sick of being lied to and treated like an idiot.