
In the wee hours of Friday morning, along party lines, House and Senate negotiators settled on the final shape of legislation meant to rein in Wall Street. The deliberations were tense at times, with House members forced to accept many of the Senate's positions, and legislators with close ties to Wall Street at loggerheads with progressives seeking to make the bill as restrictive as possible.
In the end, they fought to a draw.
Wall Street won a number of battles, but broadly speaking the conference committee strengthened the legislation in some ways, weakened it in others, and for the most part the final bill pretty closely resembles the legislation that passed the Senate this spring.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (39) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)They're close to a deal, they're not close to a deal, they're talking, they're not talking.
The final Wall Street reform negotiations have been beset by delays as key members hash out compromises on the two outstanding (and deeply consequential) aspects of financial regulatory reform.
First there's the so-called Volcker rule. Then there's the question of derivative regulations. The more difficult fight is over the latter, so let's deal with it first.
House Democrats with close ties to big banks have threatened to bolt from the whole bill over proposed new derivatives rules in the Senate bill. If passed they would require major financial firms to dissociate from their derivative trading desks. Certain New Democrats and members of the New York delegation wants that particular measure scrapped. That sounds complicated, but the basic idea is to forbid federally insured firms from taking the sorts of risky gambles that could cause them to collapse.