As with most things, I think its part good, part bad.
I like the stress test. I also like the capitialization rules.
I don't like the fiduciary rule, because I think it is FAR too vague, and the "best interests" is not clearly definable. Is it in your best interest to try to make a lot of money in a risky investment? Maybe.. maybe not. I think though that clearly conflicts of interests should be disclosed, i.e. a professional trying to sell you on a stock, when his company is pushing the IPO for instance.. the investor deserves to know that kind of stuff. But, "best interest" is far too subjective. You could already sue your broker if they did something fraudulent.. so I find that kind of thing just a way for a bunch of pig lawyers to make a buck.
I think too though that the best restriction against "too big to fail", is to provide a LOT of banking alternatives. And, the rules imposed by Dodd-Frank, make it very very very hard for small banks to get started and to grow. That reduces consumer options, and makes more people be tied up in big banks. Any rule change should be aimed at opening up competition, and restricting future consolidation. The banks should never have gotten"too big to fail" anyway.
In general though when it comes to consumer protections, I am very "buyer beware" philosophy. I think much of these "protections" just add a lot of cost, and don't actually do anything.
Stocks are risky. Investing is risky. These are things outside of T-bills that only people who have the money to lose, should invest in. And only people who understand what they are doing, should invest in. I think that all the regulation has actually done the opposite and given TOO many consumers who lack the money and financial wherewithal to think that there is some sort of measure of safety and regulation.
In fact, our Gvo't should constantly be sending the opposite message. This stuff is risky as hell. We don't have your back. Don't buy in if you can't afford to lose. I think that limits both the regulation necessary AND protects consumers. The other regulation should be designed to protect the comingling of investing products. A bank.. should be a bank. They make loans. They hold money. THAT is it. These other products should not fall under banking and the regulations should be geared to require separation there. If you do that, you don't need the costly and burdensome consumer protections.
