Podcasts about dodd frank act

CME CEO says they will sue the CFTC. CME CEO Terrence Duffy says the exchange will sue the CFTC, arguing the regulator's approval of Kalshi's perpetual futures violates the Dodd-Frank Act by treating what are really swaps as futures. CoinDesk's Jennifer Sanasie hosts "CoinDesk Daily." - This episode was hosted by Jennifer Sanasie. “CoinDesk Daily” is produced by Jennifer Sanasie and edited by Victor Chen.

The Knicks pulled off an historic comeback in Game 4 of the NBA Finals, and it isn't the only sport riding the wave of renewed fan enthusiasm. Bruin Capital CEO George Pyne explains why sports viewership is booming, for the NBA as well as the NHL, MLB, and Golf. Former CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler led the agency when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act. Today, he argues that Congress did not intend to set the CFTC up as sole regulator of sports betting. Plus, President Trump issues a warning to Iran, and CNBC's Leslie Picker breaks down what investors should know ahead of the highly anticipated SpaceX IPO.   Dan Murphy - 03:03 Leslie Picker - 10:49 Gary Gensler - 17:16 George Pyne - 34:03 In this episode: Dan Murphy, @dan_murphy Leslie Picker, @LesliePicker Joe Kernen, @JoeSquawk Kelly Evans, @KellyCNBC Cameron Costa,  @CameronCostaNY Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Shadow Politics with Senator Michael D. Brown Remembering Barney Frank: Shadow Politics Replays a Conversation on Democracy, DC Statehood, Reform, and Public Service Michael D. Brown Opens with a Tribute to Barney Frank In this episode of Shadow Politics, Former Shadow Senator Michael D. Brown opens by explaining that the program will not take live calls because it is replaying a special interview with Congressman Barney Frank. Brown says Frank had recently passed away and describes him as an important Democratic stalwart whose public service spanned decades. He frames the replay as a tribute to Frank's life, career, intellect, humor, and long support for democratic representation, including DC statehood. Revisiting the 2022 Interview The replayed interview comes from a 2022 edition of Shadow Politics, hosted by Michael D. Brown with then co-host Marília Duffles. Brown introduces Barney Frank as a legendary former member of the U.S. House of Representatives who served from 1981 to 2013, chaired the House Financial Services Committee, and was a leading co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank Act. Brown also notes Frank's status as one of the most prominent openly gay politicians in the United States and thanks him for his early support of DC voting rights and statehood. DC Statehood and Representation Brown begins the interview by recalling a previous backstage encounter with Barney Frank, Tom Harkin, and Bill Clinton in Iowa, where Frank and Harkin jokingly debated who supported DC statehood first. Frank discusses his long support for giving the District of Columbia representation and notes the irony that states with smaller populations than DC can help block the District's path to full rights. Brown connects that issue to the filibuster and the difficulty of advancing statehood legislation in the Senate. The Economy, Inflation, and the Midterms The conversation then turns to the economy and the 2022 midterm elections. Brown asks whether Democrats were doomed because of inflation and economic frustration. Frank says Democrats were in trouble politically, but argues that inflation was a worldwide issue tied to energy, the war in Ukraine, and global economic pressures rather than simply the fault of President Biden or Democrats. He also notes that despite inflation, the economy had strong areas, including low unemployment and wage growth among lower-income workers. Dodd-Frank and Financial Reform Marília Duffles asks whether the Dodd-Frank Act actually made the financial system safer or simply created more regulatory complexity. Frank defends the law, saying it worked well and helped prevent a financial crisis during the severe disruption of the pandemic. He explains that the law was broad because it combined what could have been many separate bills into one package, largely because of Senate filibuster realities. He also says major financial leaders had since acknowledged that the law was functioning effectively and did not require major changes. LGBTQ Rights, Race, and Social Progress Brown asks whether LGBTQ rights were under greater attack in the country. Frank replies that gay people have always faced attacks, but argues that conditions for LGBTQ Americans had improved dramatically over the decades, especially regarding marriage equality and general social acceptance. He says transgender rights remained more contested, but expresses optimism because younger generations are far more supportive. Frank also contrasts progress on LGBTQ issues with what he sees as more troubling regression on race, especially after the weakening of the Voting Rights Act. Democratic Politics, Young Voters, and Biden The interview also covers President Biden's standing with voters, especially young people. Frank says Biden could do more on student loan debt and marijuana policy, both of which he believes matter to younger voters. However, he also argues that Biden and congressional Democrats accomplished a great deal despite having only 50 Democratic senators. Frank says frustration often comes from voters expecting more than the political reality allows, especially when senators such as Joe Manchin limit what can pass. Ukraine, Putin, and Global Democracy Marília raises the war in Ukraine and asks whether the United States could do more to help. Frank praises Biden's handling of the crisis, especially his ability to build and maintain a broad coalition of European and allied nations against Russia. He compares Putin's aggression to earlier authoritarian expansion and says Biden's coalition-building has been a strong example of foreign policy leadership. Brown then asks whether Russia, China, India, North Korea, and other authoritarian or illiberal forces could form a dangerous bloc, and Frank says the democratic response today is stronger than the weak response to Hitler in the 1930s. Reparations, Harvard, and Institutional Responsibility Brown asks about Harvard and other universities committing money or institutional efforts toward reparations or recognition of slavery's legacy. Frank says universities such as Harvard and Georgetown are acknowledging that they directly benefited from slavery and related exploitation, making those efforts a form of deferred payment or responsibility for services and labor that helped build those institutions. On national reparations, he says the policy is more complicated, but he supports strong efforts to address the economic damage caused by slavery, racism, and later discrimination. Political Polarization and the Loss of Collegiality The interview closes with reflections on Congress, political polarization, and public service. Marília asks about the decline of substance, civility, and intelligence in politics. Frank says collegiality has collapsed and that more extreme elements have gained influence, partly because reasonable voters often withdraw from the process while extremists show up in primaries. He argues that voters must punish destructive behavior if they want it to end. Frank also reflects on missing the people of Congress, especially talented staff and colleagues, while enjoying the reduced stress of retirement. Closing Tribute The replay ends with Brown thanking Barney Frank and dedicating a closing song to him, describing Frank as someone he admired during and after his time in Congress. The current episode's tribute framing gives the interview added weight: it presents Frank not only as a policymaker, but as a sharp, funny, principled public servant who spoke clearly about democracy, equality, reform, representation, and the responsibilities of political life.

In this episode of the Loan Officer Podcast, host Dustin Owen sits down with Orlando Diaz, a distinguished 30-year mortgage industry veteran, current president of the Florida Association of Mortgage Professionals (FAMP), and owner of Metro Fund brokerage. Orlando recounts his unique professional journey, beginning as a speechwriter and real estate investor before transitioning into mortgage origination. He provides an insider's perspective on how pivotal events like the 2008 financial crash and the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act profoundly influenced both his career trajectory and his commitment to industry advocacy. Throughout the conversation, Orlando delves into several pressing issues facing mortgage professionals today. He discusses FAMP's ongoing efforts to challenge Florida's stringent condo down payment requirements, which have significant implications for both buyers and lenders. The episode also explores the complexities of property tax reform and the ongoing debates surrounding originator compensation, highlighting how these topics impact the daily work of mortgage professionals and the broader real estate market. In addition to policy and advocacy, Orlando spotlights FAMP's signature annual event: the August trade show in Orlando. He describes how this gathering has grown to become the nation's largest independent mortgage industry event, attracting more than 2,000 attendees from across the country. The trade show serves as a vital platform for networking, professional development, and staying informed about the latest trends and regulatory changes in the mortgage industry. Orlando's insights offer valuable guidance for both seasoned professionals and newcomers navigating the evolving landscape of mortgage lending.   Loan officer looking for a new place to call home?

This Day in Legal History: John Adams Sworn in as VPOn April 21, 1789, John Adams was sworn in as the first Vice President of the United States, becoming one of the earliest officials to assume office under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. His inauguration followed the formation of the new federal government and helped signal that the Constitution was not merely theoretical but fully operational. At the time, the role of Vice President was not yet clearly defined, leaving Adams to shape many of its early norms through practice rather than precedent. The Constitution assigned him the duty of presiding over the Senate, placing him at the intersection of the executive and legislative branches. This hybrid function raised early questions about separation of powers, a core principle embedded in the constitutional structure. Adams himself reportedly found the position frustrating, as it carried limited executive authority while restricting his participation in Senate debates. Despite these limitations, his service helped establish procedural expectations for how the Vice President would engage in legislative affairs.The peaceful assumption of office by Adams also reinforced the legitimacy of the new constitutional system at a time when its durability was uncertain. It demonstrated that leadership transitions could occur within a stable legal framework rather than through upheaval or force. This moment contributed to the broader development of constitutional governance by modeling adherence to formal legal processes. Early officeholders like Adams played a critical role in translating the Constitution's text into functioning institutions. His tenure also highlighted ambiguities in the document, many of which would later be addressed through political practice and constitutional amendments. Over time, the vice presidency evolved into a more active executive role, but its foundation was laid during this initial transition period. Adams's swearing-in remains a key example of how early constitutional actors shaped the practical meaning of the nation's governing document.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to revisit its denial of a whistleblower award to an anonymous claimant. The court granted a partial win to the individual, sending the case back to the agency for a clearer explanation of its reasoning. Although the court's full opinion remains sealed, earlier oral arguments suggested the judges were focused on whether the claimant's actions met the legal definition of “voluntary” under Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC had previously rejected the claim, stating that it only learned of the information after contacting the individual, who had first shared allegations with the media. The claimant argued that this sequence should not disqualify them from receiving an award.Whistleblower awards under Dodd-Frank apply when provided information leads to enforcement actions with penalties exceeding $1 million, with awards ranging from 10% to 30% of collected sanctions. Because of this structure, the denied award in this case could amount to a significant financial loss. The court's decision signals concern that the SEC may not have adequately justified its interpretation of the law. The ruling does not guarantee the claimant will receive an award but requires the agency to reconsider and better articulate its position. The case highlights ongoing tension over how strictly the SEC defines eligibility requirements for whistleblowers. It also underscores the importance of transparency in agency decision-making when financial incentives and legal protections are at stake.DC Circ. Orders SEC Rethink Of Whistleblower Claim - Law360A Reuters investigation found that Tesla, Inc. has paid little to no U.S. federal income tax over most of its history, including reporting a zero-dollar tax bill for 2025 despite generating substantial revenue. While some of these low tax obligations are explained by earlier business losses and government incentives for clean energy, the report highlights another major factor: profit shifting through foreign subsidiaries. Specifically, Tesla units in the Netherlands and Singapore recorded about $18 billion in profits that were not taxed in those countries and likely avoided U.S. taxation as well. Experts cited in the report estimate this strategy may have reduced Tesla's U.S. tax burden by more than $400 million.The mechanism appears tied to transferring intellectual property rights to overseas entities, allowing profits tied to those assets to be recorded in lower-tax jurisdictions. One Dutch-linked entity, structured as a partnership, reportedly had no employees and functioned mainly as a conduit for income. These arrangements are legal and commonly used by multinational corporations, though they remain controversial and are often criticized as exploiting gaps in international tax systems. The findings contrast with past public comments by Elon Musk, who has expressed skepticism about using aggressive tax loopholes. The report found no evidence that Tesla violated tax laws, but it underscores ongoing debates about corporate tax practices and transparency.Musk scorned “shady” loopholes, yet offshore tax tricks likely saved Tesla hundreds of millions | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and Tegna Inc., finding that challengers are likely to prove the deal would harm competition. The ruling came from a California federal court, which issued a preliminary injunction stopping the companies from integrating while lawsuits from DirecTV and several state attorneys general move forward. The court said the merger could lead to higher fees for distributors, fewer choices for consumers, and reductions in local journalism. It also warned that combining the companies would increase leverage to threaten “blackouts,” where broadcasters pull channels during fee disputes, potentially leaving viewers without access to sports and local news.The judge emphasized that Nexstar must keep Tegna operating as an independent competitor for now, noting that further integration could cause irreversible harm, including layoffs and station closures. Although the deal had already received approval from regulators like the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, the court found that oversight did not sufficiently address antitrust concerns. State officials and DirecTV argue the merger would create the largest local TV station owner in the U.S., reaching a vast majority of households and concentrating too much control in one company. Nexstar has said it will appeal the decision and continues to defend the merger as beneficial for local broadcasting.To understand the stakes, it helps to know what these companies control. Nexstar is already the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., operating more than 200 stations affiliated with major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, and it also owns the cable network NewsNation. Tegna owns dozens of local TV stations across major markets, many of which also carry network programming and produce local news. DirecTV, while not a broadcaster, distributes these channels to subscribers and would be directly affected by any increase in fees. Together, Nexstar and Tegna would control over 250 stations nationwide, raising concerns about pricing power, reduced competition, and the future of local news coverage.Nexstar-Tegna Deal Blocked Amid DirecTV, AGs' Challenge - Law360My column for Bloomberg this week argues that states rushing to tax prediction markets are trying to regulate something they haven't yet clearly defined. That uncertainty creates a real risk: policymakers could end up taxing the wrong base entirely. Until there is clarity about what these platforms actually are, restraint is the more defensible approach.Prediction markets have grown rapidly, with trading volume skyrocketing in just a few years. That growth has drawn attention from lawmakers at both the state and federal levels, but the central question remains unresolved. If these platforms are gambling, then state sports betting frameworks might apply. If they function more like financial instruments, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And if they are neither, forcing them into an existing category may create more confusion than clarity.I explain that the case for treating them like gambling platforms is understandable, since users are effectively betting on real-world outcomes. But the comparison breaks down when you look at how these platforms operate. Unlike sportsbooks, they don't act as “the house” or take on risk. Instead, they function more like exchanges, matching users who take opposite sides of a contract and earning revenue through transaction fees rather than betting outcomes.This distinction matters for tax policy. Sportsbooks are typically taxed on gross gaming revenue, which reflects the house's winnings after payouts. That model assumes operators profit from users losing bets. Prediction markets don't fit that structure, because they don't generate meaningful gaming revenue in the traditional sense. Treating trading volume as taxable revenue risks overstating the size of the tax base.At the same time, the CFTC has asserted federal authority and begun challenging state efforts in court. As these disputes move through the judiciary, there is a growing possibility of conflicting rulings that could ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if states succeed in the short term, their tax systems could rest on shaky legal ground.I also emphasize that prediction markets are inherently borderless digital platforms, which makes fragmented state-by-state regulation difficult to sustain. If they are closer to financial exchanges than local gambling operations, a coherent federal framework may be more appropriate.A more durable solution would be a federal system that taxes platform fees rather than mischaracterized gaming revenue. But that approach would require policymakers to explain why prediction markets deserve distinct treatment from other financial intermediaries. Once the gambling analogy is set aside, that justification becomes harder.None of this eliminates a role for states, particularly in areas like consumer protection and fraud enforcement. But the core questions—what prediction markets are, how they generate income, and how they should be taxed—are national in scope and should be treated that way. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ed Laine leads this Scripting Friday session focused on one of today's biggest challenges—helping buyers move forward in an uncertain market. With many buyers frozen by concerns around interest rates and home prices, Ed breaks down how to shift the conversation from fear to strategy. He explains why today's market conditions are fundamentally different from past downturns like the Great Depression and Great Recession, highlighting how modern regulations like Dodd-Frank Act have changed lending practices. Ed introduces practical scripts and frameworks to handle common objections—like waiting for lower rates or prices—and reinforces the mindset of “marry the house, date the rate.” He also shares tactical solutions such as 2-1 buydowns, refinancing strategies, and using visual comparisons to help clients make confident decisions. The session emphasizes guiding clients with clarity and data rather than speculation, helping them focus on what they can control instead of trying to time the market. If your buyers are stuck in indecision, this episode gives you the tools to lead them forward with confidence and close more deals—even in uncertain times.

We are releasing today on our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast our host Alan Kaplinsky's discussion with Marisa Calderon, President and CEO of Prosperity Now, about two high-profile policy proposals raised or embraced by President Trump as part of a broader populist affordability agenda: 1.         A nationwide 10% cap on credit card interest rates for one year. 2.         The Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA), long championed by Senator Dick Durbin which would require large credit card issuers to enable at least two unaffiliated payment networks (only one of which could be MasterCard or VISA) on their cards. Each proposal is framed as pro-consumer. Each has generated significant pushback from banks, card issuers, and trade associations. However, even consumer advocacy groups have raised serious questions about the wisdom of such initiatives. Prosperity Now is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing economic mobility, with a focus on those facing economic barriers. Each raises fundamental questions about how to balance affordability and access in the consumer credit market. Our discussion focused on a central theme: affordability is a real and pressing concern, but policy design matters enormously. Credit Card APRs: A Real Affordability Pressure As Calderon emphasized, policymakers are not wrong to focus on credit card interest rates. Average credit card APRs now hover around 22%, up sharply from roughly 13% a decade ago. Approximately half of cardholders carry a balance, and many rely on credit cards not for discretionary spending, but as liquidity bridges, covering emergency medical bills, car repairs, groceries, and other essentials. For lower and moderate-income households, credit cards are often the only readily available, regulated source of short-term liquidity. That makes rising APRs particularly painful. Calderon's formulation is apt: policymakers have identified the right problem. The harder question is whether they have identified the right solution. The 10% Interest Rate Cap: Lessons from History The proposal to impose a flat 10% nationwide cap on credit card interest rates for one year would represent an unprecedented federal intervention into unsecured revolving credit markets. Credit cards are unsecured and priced for risk. Interest margins help issuers cover expected charge-offs, volatility, and operational costs. If pricing flexibility is removed, lenders cannot simply absorb the loss, they adjust. Historically, those adjustments take predictable forms: •                 Tighter underwriting standards •                 Higher minimum credit scores •                 Lower credit limits •                 Reduced rewards programs •                 Increased non-interest fees •                 Exit from higher-risk market segments The likely result, as Calderon noted, is credit contraction, particularly affecting marginal and lower-income borrowers. The most relevant historical example may be the 1980 credit controls imposed during the Carter Administration, which were rescinded within months after causing severe market disruption. A more targeted example is the 36% APR cap under the Military Lending Act, which illustrates both the importance of bipartisan legislative design and the reality that even well-intentioned caps can reduce access at the margins. Recent Federal Reserve research on state usury caps reinforces this concern: when interest rate ceilings are imposed, credit to higher-risk borrowers contracts, credit to lower-risk borrowers expands, and delinquency rates do not meaningfully improve. In other words, credit is reallocated, not necessarily improved. Even a "temporary" cap may have durable consequences. Issuers that exit certain segments or reduce credit lines are not obligated, and may not be economically inclined, to restore them once the cap expires. Credit score impacts and reduced access can linger well beyond the formal life of the policy. As Calderon put it, blunt price controls are a chainsaw when what is needed is a scalpel. Affordability in Context: What Drives Household Budgets? An additional consideration is scale. Research recently highlighted by the Consumer Bankers Association shows that the fastest-growing household expenses from 2013–2024 were healthcare, shelter, food, and vehicles. Credit card interest represents a relatively small share of average household expenditures. This does not minimize the pain of high APRs, especially for households carrying persistent balances, but it does raise an important structural question: can credit card rate caps meaningfully solve broader affordability challenges rooted in housing, medical costs, food inflation, and transportation? Credit cards are often the mechanism households use to cope with those rising costs. Constraining access to that liquidity may exacerbate, rather than relieve, financial stress. The Credit Card Competition Act: Structural Reform or Indirect Price Control? The second proposal we discussed, the Credit Card Competition Act (the "CCCA"), takes a different approach. Rather than capping interest rates, the CCCA would require large issuers to offer merchants at least two unaffiliated network routing options (only one of which could be Visa or Mastercard). The theory is that routing competition would reduce interchange fees ("swipe fees"), lowering merchant costs and ultimately consumer prices. Merchants have generally supported the proposal. Banks and card issuers have strongly opposed it. The consumer-facing promise is straightforward: lower merchant fees should translate into lower retail prices, but history complicates that assumption. The Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act imposed caps on debit card interchange fees for large issuers and included routing requirements. While interchange revenue declined, Calderon pointed out that empirical evidence suggests that cost savings were not consistently passed through to consumers in the form of lower prices. At the same time, banks offset lost revenue through higher account fees and reduced benefits. A similar dynamic could unfold in the credit card market. Interchange revenue helps fund: •           Rewards programs •           Fraud detection and prevention •           Customer service infrastructure •           Risk management If that revenue is compressed, issuers may respond with tighter underwriting, reduced rewards, or new fee structures. As Calderon observed, although the CCCA operates through indirect price pressure rather than a direct APR ceiling, downstream effects could look similar. Distinguishing Populist Framing From Durable Reform Both the rate cap and the CCCA are framed as pro-consumer, populist reforms. The political appeal is clear, but distinguishing headline appeal from durable consumer benefit requires careful analysis. Calderon suggested several guideposts policymakers should consider: •                 Access – Does the reform preserve or expand access for low- and moderate-income borrowers? •                 Incidence – Who actually captures the gains? Consumers, merchants, intermediaries, or some combination? •                 Substitution effects – Does the policy push consumers toward higher-cost, less-regulated alternatives such as payday or fringe products? •                 Durability – What happens after implementation? Do markets rebound, or do credit line reductions and underwriting changes persist? These questions are not ideological. They are structural. Affordability and access are not opposing values. The policy challenge is designing reforms that alleviate financial strain without narrowing the regulated credit tools families rely on when emergencies arise. The Bottom Line Affordability concerns are real. Rising APRs are real. Financial stress among many households is real. But blunt price caps may reduce rates on paper while reducing access in practice. Structural competition mandates may promise savings that do not materialize at the checkout counter. Durable consumer protection requires careful calibration — the scalpel, not the chainsaw. For industry participants, policymakers, and advocates alike, the takeaway is straightforward: evidence and market mechanics matter. Populist framing may win headlines, but long-term financial stability depends on policy design that accounts for how credit markets actually function. As always, we will continue to monitor these proposals and their evolution in Congress and the Administration.  It may be noteworthy that President Trump did not mention either proposal during his almost two-hour State of the Union Address on January 24th. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

On today's Consumer Finance Monitor podcast, we are releasing an episode about a timely and wide-ranging discussion on one of the most significant and fastest-evolving developments in commercial finance: the rapid "consumerization" of small business lending law. In this episode, host Alan Kaplinsky welcomes Louis Caditz-Peck, Executive Director of the Responsible Business Lending Coalition (RBLC), for an in-depth conversation about the proliferation of state small business lending protection statutes, the policy debates driving them, and what they mean for lenders, fintechs, banks, and small business borrowers. From Self-Regulation to State Law: How We Got Here For decades, commercial lending operated under a fundamentally different regulatory framework than consumer credit. The prevailing assumption was that business borrowers were sophisticated, negotiated their transactions, and did not need standardized disclosures or suitability-type protections. That assumption has eroded. As Louis explains, since the financial crisis, and particularly with the growth of online and fintech lending, small business financing has changed dramatically. Community banks have pulled back. Non-bank online platforms have expanded. New products, including merchant cash advances and other revenue-based financing arrangements, have proliferated. At the same time, concerns have grown about: Opaque pricing structures Misleading "interest rate" representations Broker incentives that steer borrowers into higher-cost products Repeated refinancing of unaffordable obligations These concerns led to the development of the Small Business Borrower's Bill of Rights, a set of industry standards first launched in 2015 at the Aspen Institute by a coalition of lenders, small business groups, and nonprofit advocates. What began as a voluntary, self-regulatory effort quickly became a blueprint for legislation. California's SB 1235 in 2018 marked the first major small business truth-in-lending law. Since then, according to Louis, 19 small business financial protection laws have been enacted across multiple states, with California and New York leading the way. The "Consumerization" of Small Business Lending A central theme of the episode is whether we are witnessing the "consumerization" of small business lending. Many of the new state laws borrow heavily from consumer credit concepts, including: APR-style cost disclosures Total cost of financing disclosures Payment schedule requirements Prepayment and fee transparency Restrictions on certain contractual provisions Some states have layered on licensing or registration requirements for small business finance providers. Others incorporate or supplement state UDAP (unfair and deceptive acts and practices) standards, which may apply to certain business-to-business transactions as well as consumer transactions. The policy rationale is straightforward: many "Main Street" businesses are effectively sole proprietorships or closely-held operations without in-house finance or legal teams. Legislators increasingly view these borrowers as closer to consumers than to large corporations with treasury departments and inside or outside counsel. As Alan and Louis discuss, the regulatory shift raises serious operational and compliance challenges, particularly given the state-by-state patchwork of requirements. The Compliance Conundrum: Patchwork and Harmonization A recurring concern is whether the proliferation of state laws imposes disproportionate burdens on smaller lenders and startups, especially compared to large institutions with robust legal and compliance infrastructures. Louis emphasizes that RBLC has actively worked to promote interstate harmonization, particularly between California and New York. For example: Advocating for standardized disclosure forms that can be used in multiple states Aligning definitions and disclosure triggers Encouraging estimated APR calculations for revenue-based financing However, not all states have followed a harmonized approach. Some laws, particularly those focused narrowly on merchant cash advances, have created divergent requirements, complicating multi-state compliance. As Alan notes, the trend presents both risk and opportunity for lenders and their counsel. The regulatory environment is no longer static. Companies offering small business financing must assume that: Cost disclosures will likely be required in more states Registration or licensing may apply Enforcement risk—particularly under state UDAP statutes—will increase Section 1071 and Federal Uncertainty The episode also explores the role of the CFPB under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires data collection on small business lending to: 1.     Identify potential discrimination, and 2.     Assess whether certain markets are underserved. The CFPB finalized its 1071 rule in 2023 under then Director Rohit Chopra. Multiple legal challenges followed. Under the current administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking has sought to scale back and slow implementation. At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission has signaled an interest in using its enforcement authority to address unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting small businesses—underscoring an intriguing tension within federal regulatory policy. As Louis observes, the debate is not simply about reducing or expanding government. It is about how government authority will be used and whether transparency and enforcement will be advanced through rulemaking, litigation, or state initiatives. Merchant Cash Advances and Revenue-Based Financing A particularly nuanced part of the discussion focuses on merchant cash advances (MCAs) and other sales-based financing products. These arrangements typically involve: An advance of funds in exchange for a fixed repayment amount Payments tied to a percentage of daily or periodic sales Variable duration depending on business performance RBLC's position, as Louis explains, is product neutral. The coalition does not advocate banning product categories or imposing rate caps. Instead, it focuses on responsible practices, including transparent pricing and assessment of ability to repay. Importantly, none of the major state lending protection laws impose interest rate caps. The emphasis is on disclosure and market transparency rather than price regulation. Who Is Covered—and Who Is Not? Most state small business truth-in-lending statutes apply to financing of $500,000 or less (with some variation, such as New York's $2.5 million threshold following gubernatorial revision). Coverage often includes: Closed-end loans Open-end lines of credit Sales-based financing/MCAs Factoring (in some states) Banks are generally exempt from these statutes, though non-bank "providers" presenting the offer of credit may still have disclosure obligations even in bank partnership models. As Alan highlights, this raises interesting competitive and policy questions about level playing fields across banks and non-banks. Looking Ahead to 2026 Both speakers agree: this trend is not going away. With significant percentages of small business owners reporting difficulty accessing affordable capital—and a substantial minority reporting harm from predatory practices—state legislators remain motivated to act. The key policy question is not whether regulation will expand, but how. Well-designed transparency frameworks can: Promote price competition Reward responsible innovation Improve borrower decision-making Poorly harmonized or overly rigid frameworks, however, risk increasing compliance costs and reducing credit availability. As Alan notes in his closing remarks, small business finance regulation is becoming a core area of growth for law firms and compliance professionals historically focused on consumer financial services. The line between consumer and commercial finance continues to blur.  Alan noted that the Consumer Financial Services Group which he founded and chaired for 25 years has counseled and represented small business lenders for decades. For lenders, fintechs, banks, and their advisors, understanding these developments is no longer optional—it is essential. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

"I will say that QAnon was right and I was wrong." — Pepper CulpepperFrom Bannon and Trump to Summers, Gates, Blavatnik and Chomsky, the Epstein scandal has revealed elites of all ideological stripes behaving shamefully together. The Oxford political scientist Pepper Culpepper argues this is exactly the kind of corporate scandal that can save democracy—not despite its ugliness, but because of it. His new co-authored book, Billionaire Backlash, shows how scandals activate "latent opinion," bringing long-simmering public concerns to the surface and triggering society-wide demand for regulation. We discuss why Cambridge Analytica led to California privacy law, how Samsung's bribery scandal sparked Korea's Candlelight Protests, and why China's authoritarian approach to corporate malfeasance actually undermines trust.Culpepper, himself the Blavatnik Professor of Government at Oxford's Blavatnik School, acknowledges an uncomfortable truth. "I would say that QAnon was right," he admits, "and I was wrong." The specifics might have been fantasy, but the underlying suspicion about elite corruption was justified. And policy entrepreneurs—obsessive individuals who channel public outrage into actual legislation—matter more than we think. For Culpepper, billionaire backlash isn't a threat to democracy—it might actually be what saves it.About the GuestPepper Culpepper is Vice Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford. He is the co-author, with Taeku Lee of Harvard, of Billionaire Backlash: The Age of Corporate Scandal and How It Could Save Democracy (2026).ReferencesScandals discussed:●      The Epstein scandal revealed that elites across politics, finance, and academia were connected to Jeffrey Epstein's network of abuse—vindicating populist suspicions that "the system is broken."●      Cambridge Analytica (2018) exposed how Facebook leaked data on 90 million users, leading to the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act in the EU, and California's privacy regulations.●      The Samsung bribery scandal in South Korea led to the Candlelight Protests and President Park Geun-hye's resignation, demonstrating how corporate scandals can strengthen civil society.●      The 2008 Chinese milk scandal killed six infants due to melamine contamination; the government's cover-up during the Beijing Olympics destroyed public trust in domestic food safety.●      Volkswagen's Dieselgate scandal showed how companies cheat on regulations, bringing latent concerns about corporate behavior to the surface.Policy entrepreneurs mentioned:●      Carl Levin was a US Senator from Michigan who shepherded the Goldman Sachs hearings and contributed to the Dodd-Frank Act.●      Margrethe Vestager served as EU Competition Commissioner and pushed for the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act.●      Max Schrems is an Austrian privacy activist who, as a student, discovered Facebook retained his deleted messages and eventually brought down the US-EU data transfer agreement.●      Alastair Mactaggart is a California property developer who pushed through the state's privacy regulations when federal action proved impossible.●      Zhao Lianhai was a Chinese activist who tried to organize parents after the 2008 milk scandal; the government arrested and imprisoned him.Concepts discussed:●      Latent opinion refers to concerns people hold in the back of their minds that aren't front-of-mind until a scandal brings them to the surface.●      The Thermidor reference is to the French Revolutionary period when the radical Jacobins were overthrown—Culpepper suggests a controlled version might benefit democracy.●      The muckrakers were Progressive Era journalists whose exposés led to reforms like the Food and Drug Administration.Also mentioned:●      Michael Sandel is a Harvard political philosopher known for arguing that "there shouldn't be a price on everything."●      Patrick Radden Keefe wrote Empire of Pain, the definitive account of the Sackler family and the opioid epidemic.●      Lee Jae-yong is the heir apparent to Samsung, implicated in the bribery scandal.●      Parasite, Squid Game, and No Other Choice are Korean cultural works that critique the country's relationship with its conglomerates.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotifyChapters:(00:00) - (00:22) - The Epstein opportunity (01:21) - Elite overreach exposed (03:12) - Scandals without partisan charge (05:04) - The Vice Dean's credibility problem (06:21) - Latent opinion explained (09:39) - Is there anything wrong with being a billionaire? (11:47) - American vs. European scandals (14:48) - Saving democracy vs. saving capitalism (17:05) - Corporate scandals and economic vitality (18:33) - Policy entrepreneurs: Carl Levin and Margrethe Vestager (19:54...

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.What would you do if your career was at stake, and your integrity was challenged by the very system you worked for? In this gripping episode of Employee Survival Guide®, Mark Carey unravels the whistleblowing legal saga of Trevor Murray, a strategist at UBS who faced a harrowing integrity dilemma in the cutthroat world of Wall Street. As the pressure mounted to alter his research reports to benefit the trading desk, Murray found himself at a crossroads, ultimately choosing whistleblowing on unethical practices that threatened not just his job, but the very fabric of corporate integrity. This episode takes you on a deep dive into the murky waters of employment law, focusing on pivotal legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. Over an arduous 14-year journey through various legal battles, Murray's case culminated in a landmark Supreme Court decision that redefined whistleblowing, clarifying that the intent to retaliate does not need to be proven for a case to hold water. But as we celebrate this legal victory, we must also confront the harsh realities faced by whistleblowers. Are the protections offered by the law truly effective, or do they merely exist on paper? Join us as we explore the moral and ethical challenges that arise in a hostile work environment, shedding light on critical issues like employee rights, retaliation, and workplace discrimination. Murray's story raises vital questions about the culture of silence that often pervades corporate America, and the toll that such battles can take on individuals' lives and careers. Through this lens, we examine the broader implications of employment law issues, from severance negotiations to performance improvement plans, and the importance of employee advocacy in navigating workplace dynamics. Whether you're an employee grappling with a toxic work culture, a manager striving for a healthier workplace, or someone interested in the intricacies of employment law, this episode is packed with insights and practical advice. Tune in to gain an understanding of your rights at work, learn how to effectively negotiate employment contracts, and discover strategies for surviving and thriving in the challenging landscape of modern employment. Don't miss this opportunity to empower yourself with the knowledge you need to navigate your career with confidence and integrity. Welcome to the Employee Survival Guide®—your essential resource for thriving in today's complex workplace.  If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Limited Liability, Creditor Protection, and the Boundaries of the Corporate Form.1. Philosophical and Legal FoundationsFederal securities regulation in the United States is anchored in a disclosure-based regulatory philosophy. Rather than mandating business outcomes (merit review), the law aims to ensure that investors receive accurate and timely information to make informed decisions. This dual regime divides authority: state law governs internal corporate governance (fiduciary duties like loyalty and care), while federal law regulates the corporation's interface with the market.The primary federal statutes are the Securities Act of 1933, which focuses on the initial issuance and registration of securities (the primary market), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which governs ongoing reporting and trading (the secondary market). At the issuance stage, companies must file registration statements (e.g., Form S-1) detailing their business, financial health, and risk factors. Once public, they must provide periodic updates via annual (10-K) and quarterly (10-Q) reports.2. The Blurring Line Between Corporate and Securities LawWhile the two fields were traditionally separate, the boundary has eroded due to federal legislative responses to corporate crises.• Structural Regulation: Statutes like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 shifted federal law into the "internal affairs" of the corporation. For example, SOX mandated independent audit committees and internal control certifications, while Dodd-Frank introduced "say-on-pay" advisory votes on executive compensation.• Ownership vs. Trading: Some scholars argue that the distinction is better defined by the phase of investment: securities law protects investors while they are "traders" (ensuring fair valuation), while corporate law protects them as "owners" (protecting them from midstream misconduct that reduces firm value).3. Insider Trading and MaterialityFederal law prohibits insider trading—trading on material non-public information in breach of a duty of trust. Two primary theories exist:• Classical Theory: A breach of duty to the corporation's own shareholders.• Misappropriation Theory: A breach of duty to the source of the information, even if that source is not the issuer of the traded security.The unifying principle in these cases is materiality, defined from the perspective of a "reasonable investor". Information is material if there is a substantial likelihood that its disclosure would significantly alter the "total mix" of information available.4. Enforcement and DetectionThe enforcement architecture relies on both public action by the SEC and private litigation.• Litigation Reform: Due to concerns over "frivolous" class actions, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) to heighten pleading standards and limit the use of state courts for securities fraud claims.• Technological Detection: Modern surveillance uses machine learning and dimensionality reduction (such as Principal Component Analysis and Autoencoders) to identify anomalous trading profiles that deviate from peer behavior around Price Sensitive Events (PSEs), such as takeover bids.5. Corporate Governance and Power ImbalancesThe sources highlight a systemic imbalance of power in favor of management over shareholders and boards.• Agency Costs: Dispersed ownership leads to "costs of agency," where managers may prioritize their own interests (such as short-term share price maximization for bonuses) over long-term shareholder value.• Board Independence: Reform efforts have sought to empower independent directors and audit committees to act as guardians of accountability, though critics argue that as long as management controls the nomination process, true independence remains difficult to achieve.

The Dual System of Corporate Law: State vs. FederalThe following summary synthesizes the key themes:1. Philosophical and Legal FoundationsFederal securities regulation in the United States is anchored in a disclosure-based regulatory philosophy. Rather than mandating business outcomes (merit review), the law aims to ensure that investors receive accurate and timely information to make informed decisions. This dual regime divides authority: state law governs internal corporate governance (fiduciary duties like loyalty and care), while federal law regulates the corporation's interface with the market.The primary federal statutes are the Securities Act of 1933, which focuses on the initial issuance and registration of securities (the primary market), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which governs ongoing reporting and trading (the secondary market). At the issuance stage, companies must file registration statements (e.g., Form S-1) detailing their business, financial health, and risk factors. Once public, they must provide periodic updates via annual (10-K) and quarterly (10-Q) reports.2. The Blurring Line Between Corporate and Securities LawWhile the two fields were traditionally separate, the boundary has eroded due to federal legislative responses to corporate crises.• Structural Regulation: Statutes like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 shifted federal law into the "internal affairs" of the corporation. For example, SOX mandated independent audit committees and internal control certifications, while Dodd-Frank introduced "say-on-pay" advisory votes on executive compensation.• Ownership vs. Trading: Some scholars argue that the distinction is better defined by the phase of investment: securities law protects investors while they are "traders" (ensuring fair valuation), while corporate law protects them as "owners" (protecting them from midstream misconduct that reduces firm value).3. Insider Trading and MaterialityFederal law prohibits insider trading—trading on material non-public information in breach of a duty of trust. Two primary theories exist:• Classical Theory: A breach of duty to the corporation's own shareholders.• Misappropriation Theory: A breach of duty to the source of the information, even if that source is not the issuer of the traded security.The unifying principle in these cases is materiality, defined from the perspective of a "reasonable investor". Information is material if there is a substantial likelihood that its disclosure would significantly alter the "total mix" of information available.4. Enforcement and DetectionThe enforcement architecture relies on both public action by the SEC and private litigation.• Litigation Reform: Due to concerns over "frivolous" class actions, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) to heighten pleading standards and limit the use of state courts for securities fraud claims.• Technological Detection: Modern surveillance uses machine learning and dimensionality reduction (such as Principal Component Analysis and Autoencoders) to identify anomalous trading profiles that deviate from peer behavior around Price Sensitive Events (PSEs), such as takeover bids.5. Corporate Governance and Power ImbalancesThe sources highlight a systemic imbalance of power in favor of management over shareholders and boards.• Agency Costs: Dispersed ownership leads to "costs of agency," where managers may prioritize their own interests (such as short-term share price maximization for bonuses) over long-term shareholder value.• Board Independence: Reform efforts have sought to empower independent directors and audit committees to act as guardians of accountability, though critics argue that as long as management controls the nomination process, true independence remains difficult to achieve.

Who controls your financial data and who decides how it can be used? As Americans increasingly rely on digital banking, apps, and financial technology tools, that question has moved to the forefront of a policy debate that may come to a head in the coming months.Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act is currently under review by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, prompting renewed debate over how consumers should access their own financial information and decide how it is shared. Translating that principle into practice, raises significant legal and policy questions about whether current regulatory and market structures truly empower consumers or instead concentrate control over data into the hands of banksThis webinar will examine open banking through a consumer-centered legal lens, focusing on how rules governing data access, privacy, and consent impact real-world choice. Panelists will discuss how bank-centric approaches may prioritize institutional preferences over consumer autonomy, potentially limiting Americans’ ability to use innovative financial tools that rely on secure, authorized data sharing.Throughout the program, panelists will evaluate the CFPB’s Section 1033 rulemaking and consider whether a consumer-directed approach to financial data can both defend consumer’s right to their own data and foster innovation.Featuring:Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLCProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers Research

Amias Gerety, Partner at QED Investors, brings an unconventional perspective to venture capital shaped by his eight years at the US Treasury Department during the financial crisis. A mechanical thinker, Amias applies an essentialist approach to understanding how businesses work. He explains why QED looks for companies that triple every six months at Series A, how inverted AI creates new opportunities in financial services, and why the best advice for founders remains timeless: build something people want and charge more than it costs to make. With insights on the AI bubble, the application layer renaissance, and why saying no 99 times out of 100 is the real job of a VC, Amias offers a masterclass in disciplined, thesis-driven investing.In this episode, you'll learn:[01:24] Amias's unique path from politics and Treasury to venture capital[05:13] The lever theory: how government and VC create systemic change[07:12] Why mechanical thinking and first principles matter in VC[14:48] QED's investment sweet spot: Series A and series B with undeniable momentum[19:25] What product-market fit really means and how to recognize it[22:14] Inverted AI: Why the world needs financial services for the AI economy[26:43] The AI bubble paradox: overvalued companies, transformative technology[32:57] Why early-stage founders should ignore the macro and focus on customers[34:31] The brutal math of ventureThe nonprofit organization Amias is passionate about: EastersealsAbout Amias GeretyAmias Gerety is a Partner at QED Investors, where he focuses on FinTech and InsurTech investments. Before joining QED in 2017, Amias spent eight years at the US Treasury Department from the first day of the Obama administration through its final day. During his tenure, he helped write the Dodd-Frank Act and built the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the organization responsible for monitoring systemic risk in the US financial system. His government experience during the financial crisis gives him a unique perspective on market dynamics and regulatory frameworks. A mechanical thinker who approaches investments with an essentialist mindset, Amias has invested in companies like Kin Insurance, Prosper, and Tint. He previously worked as a management consultant and with Save the Children in East Africa.About QED InvestorsQED Investors is one of the most successful venture capital firms focused on FinTech investments globally. As a multi-stage, global firm with a $650 million early-stage fund and $300 million growth fund, QED specializes in Series A and B investments in companies demonstrating exceptional momentum and product-market fit. The firm requires portfolio companies to show dramatic growth—expecting tripling in six months for Series A and tripling in a year for Series B investments. QED's partners bring deep domain expertise from building and scaling financial services companies, with a particular focus on companies that are reshaping financial services through technology. The firm is known for its rigorous, thesis-driven approach to investing and its high conviction in backing founders who have found authentic product-market fit in large, expanding markets.Subscribe to our podcast and stay tuned for our next episode.

This Day in Legal History: Federal Reserve ActOn December 23, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, creating the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States. The law was the culmination of decades of debate over banking reform, intensified by the financial panic of 1907. The Act aimed to provide the country with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. It established twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks overseen by a central Board in Washington, D.C., striking a balance between public oversight and private banking interests.The Federal Reserve was given key powers, including the ability to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now the dominant form of U.S. currency), regulate banks, and serve as a lender of last resort during financial crises. This marked a significant shift from the fragmented and largely unregulated banking environment of the 19th century.Critics feared it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a few, while supporters believed it brought necessary structure and national oversight. Over the decades, the Fed's role expanded, especially during the Great Depression, World War II, and more recently the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of the Fed also represented a broader legal evolution in how the federal government engaged with economic policy.A coalition of 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oregon to prevent the Trump administration from defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The states argue that the administration's decision to stop requesting funds from the Federal Reserve is unlawful and undermines Congress's constitutional authority. Since returning to office in January, President Trump has taken steps to dismantle the CFPB, including appointing his budget director, Russell Vought, as acting head and halting most agency operations.The CFPB was created in 2011 to safeguard consumers in the financial sector and has recovered over $21 billion for Americans. It is uniquely funded directly by the Federal Reserve rather than through Congressional appropriations. The administration claims the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB's funding to come from the Fed's combined earnings, which they argue are unavailable due to the Fed operating at a loss since 2022.The lawsuit highlights that the CFPB is legally required to process consumer complaints from states, and without funding, it cannot fulfill this duty. Plaintiffs also contend that the administration's move violates the separation of powers by interfering with a congressionally established funding mechanism. Additional lawsuits from a federal employee union and nonprofits are pending in other courts, also seeking to compel the agency to resume funding requests.Democratic-led states sue to block US consumer watchdog's defunding under Trump | ReutersA new push by the Trump administration to challenge corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) faces steep legal hurdles. Under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency is shifting toward what she calls a more “conservative view of civil rights,” focusing on potential discrimination against white men. Lucas has announced plans to investigate corporate DEI policies and pursue enforcement where race- or sex-based decisions are suspected.However, legal experts emphasize that proving such claims is difficult. Discrimination cases require clear evidence that someone was denied a job or benefit specifically because of their race or sex, not just because they were part of a changing applicant pool. Critics argue that the administration's narrative misunderstands the legal and practical realities of workplace diversity, which is often designed to prevent discrimination, not perpetuate it.Despite aggressive executive orders targeting DEI, many companies are maintaining or quietly adjusting their programs to remain compliant. Legal audits and program rebranding are common, especially in industries like automotive. DEI advocates point out that the business case for inclusion remains strong, as companies see diverse teams as essential to long-term success.Ultimately, while the administration's rhetoric may galvanize parts of its base, experts say turning that rhetoric into enforceable legal action will be difficult under existing anti-discrimination laws.Trump's anti-corporate DEI campaign faces high legal hurdles | ReutersMercedes-Benz has agreed to pay $120 million to settle environmental and consumer protection claims brought by multiple U.S. states over its use of emissions-cheating software in certain diesel vehicles. The settlement resolves the remaining U.S. legal actions tied to the broader Dieselgate scandal, which has affected several automakers. The claims focused on Mercedes' BlueTEC diesel models, which were previously marketed as especially clean and advanced.As part of the agreement, Mercedes will continue retrofitting affected vehicles with approved emissions software. These additional updates are expected to cost the company tens of millions more. However, the company stated that its financial results won't be impacted, as it had already set aside sufficient funds to cover the settlement and associated costs.Mercedes reaches $120 million settlement with US states over emissions scandal | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that the IRS has a rare opportunity to repair its deeply flawed Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP), which has become so punitive and complex that it actively discourages taxpayers from coming forward. While the program is supposed to help bring people back into compliance, its current structure demands that taxpayers essentially confess to wrongdoing—sometimes criminal—in a sworn statement, without any assurance the IRS will even consider their disclosure.Recent proposed reforms introduce a more structured penalty system and eliminate the notorious “willfulness checkbox” from Form 14457, a small but significant change that previously forced taxpayers to admit to criminal conduct just to apply. Still, the process remains risky. The IRS continues to require extensive narratives of past noncompliance, and for taxpayers with crypto assets, the demands are even greater: wallet addresses, transaction hashes, and mixer use must all be disclosed upfront. That level of technical and legal exposure could deter even well-meaning taxpayers.I argue the IRS must go further. It should offer flexible payment options—like installment agreements or offers in compromise—and abandon its rigid “pay-in-full” approach. It should also adopt a tiered penalty framework that accounts for intent, scale, and the evolving complexity of assets like cryptocurrency. Finally, the IRS needs to delay the most invasive digital asset reporting until after a taxpayer has been preliminarily accepted into the program, rather than forcing exhaustive disclosures at the outset.Without deeper changes, the VDP risks continuing as a trapdoor rather than a lifeline—one that punishes honesty and rewards silence. The current moment of public review is the best chance to realign the program with its original purpose: restoring compliance, not burying it.The IRS Has a Chance to Fix Its Voluntary Disclosure Program This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Madoff ArrestedOn December 11, 2008, Bernard L. Madoff was arrested by federal agents and charged with securities fraud, marking the start of one of the most consequential white-collar crime cases in American legal history. Madoff, a former NASDAQ chairman and respected figure in the investment world, confessed to running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors—individuals, charities, and institutional clients—out of an estimated $65 billion. The legal scheme unraveled when Madoff admitted to his sons that the business was “one big lie,” prompting them to alert authorities. Prosecutors swiftly brought charges under multiple statutes, including securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, perjury, and false statements.The Department of Justice pursued criminal charges while the SEC, heavily criticized for prior inaction, launched civil enforcement actions under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Madoff waived indictment and pleaded guilty on March 12, 2009, to 11 felony counts without a plea deal. He was sentenced to 150 years in federal prison—the statutory maximum—and ordered to forfeit $170.8 billion, reflecting the full scope of the fraud. The case catalyzed intense scrutiny of the SEC's oversight failures and led to internal reforms within the agency, including new whistleblower protections and enhanced enforcement procedures.In the bankruptcy proceedings under SIPA (Securities Investor Protection Act), trustee Irving Picard was appointed to recover funds for victims, using clawback lawsuits under fraudulent transfer laws to retrieve ill-gotten gains from those who had profited—wittingly or not. The legal theories underpinning those suits, including the application of actual and constructive fraud standards, sparked complex litigation that continues to shape bankruptcy and securities jurisprudence. Madoff's arrest also prompted Congress to review gaps in financial regulation, laying groundwork for reforms later codified in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.Jury selection began in the federal trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of helping a Mexican migrant avoid arrest by U.S. immigration agents. The case, brought by the Trump administration's Justice Department, charges Dugan with concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings, alleging she deliberately diverted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and allowed the migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to exit through a non-public courthouse door following a domestic violence hearing.Federal prosecutors argue that Dugan acted corruptly, citing her visible anger upon learning that ICE agents were present and her claim that a judicial warrant was required for the arrest—an assertion prosecutors say was false. Flores-Ruiz was ultimately arrested outside the courthouse after a brief chase.Dugan's defense contends that she was navigating unclear rules around courthouse immigration enforcement and had sought guidance from court leadership days earlier. Her legal team maintains she was not trying to obstruct justice but rather to understand what rules applied.The case illustrates the broader tension between local judicial discretion and federal immigration enforcement under Trump's expanded deportation policies, which have included more aggressive operations in local courthouses. Critics argue such tactics deter immigrants from accessing courts and undermine public confidence in the legal system.Dugan, a judge since 2016 and formerly head of Catholic Charities in Milwaukee, has been suspended from the bench pending the outcome of the trial. Her prosecution echoes an earlier Trump-era case against a Massachusetts judge accused of similar conduct—charges that were later dropped during the Biden administration.Wisconsin judge on trial as Trump administration targets immigration enforcement resistance | ReutersThe Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department to block its decision to feature President Donald Trump's image on the 2026 America the Beautiful national parks annual pass. The group argues the move violates the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act of 2004, which requires the pass to display the winning photograph from a public contest depicting natural scenery or wildlife in a national park or forest.This year's winning photo—a landscape of Glacier National Park—was allegedly discarded in favor of a close-up image of Trump, posed beside George Washington, without any new contest or congressional approval. The lawsuit calls the switch an unlawful act of self-promotion and criticizes it as an attempt to turn a public symbol into a personal branding tool.Adding to the controversy, the lawsuit claims that the Glacier photo was demoted to a new $250 pass for foreign visitors, part of Trump's newly introduced “America-first” admissions system. The updated pricing structure and design were part of a broader Interior Department announcement touting “modernization” of park access.The lawsuit also highlights changes to the free admission calendar, noting that Trump's birthday (June 14) was added as a holiday, while existing free days honoring Martin Luther King Jr. and Juneteenth were eliminated. These shifts coincide with Trump's efforts to slash the national parks budget and workforce while raising fees for international visitors.Lawsuit seeks to keep Trump's face off of national parks annual pass | ReutersIn a piece for Forbes this week I unpacked the misleading claim that Social Security is no longer taxed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Despite bold headlines and political messaging to the contrary, Social Security remains taxable, just as it has been since 1983. What the bill actually includes is an expanded senior-specific deduction—$6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples—that may reduce taxable income, but doesn't isolate or exempt Social Security from taxation in any way.The structure of Social Security taxation—where up to 85% of benefits can be taxed for higher-income seniors—remains untouched. What changed is that some seniors, depending on income and deductions, might now end up paying less tax, including on Social Security, not because the income is tax-exempt, but because the overall taxable income has been reduced. This is a fungible deduction, applicable to any income source, not a targeted policy shift.The White House's messaging reframes a broad-based, temporary deduction as a specific, permanent tax relief for seniors, creating confusion. While some retirees may see a tax reduction, the underlying rules that govern when and how Social Security is taxed have not changed, and inflation-adjusted thresholds that pull more seniors into taxability remain. The deduction itself expires in 2028, unlike other OBBBA provisions that benefit wealthier taxpayers and corporations.The element worth highlighting is the difference between a deduction and an exemption, and how political messaging often blurs this. Deductions reduce taxable income; exemptions remove specific income from taxation entirely. In this case, branding a general deduction as a Social Security exemption is both legally inaccurate and politically strategic—obscuring the truth behind a familiar and emotionally charged issue.The Truth About ‘No Tax On Social Security'The estate of an 83-year-old woman filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their chatbot, ChatGPT, played a central role in a tragic murder-suicide in Connecticut. The suit claims that Stein-Erik Soelberg, a 56-year-old man experiencing delusions, had been interacting for months with GPT-4o, which allegedly validated and intensified his paranoid beliefs, ultimately leading him to kill his mother, Suzanne Adams, before taking his own life.The complaint, filed in California Superior Court, accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of product liability, negligence, and wrongful death, arguing that the chatbot systematically encouraged Soelberg's psychosis—affirming fantasies about divine missions, assassination attempts, and even identifying his mother as an operative. The plaintiffs argue that Microsoft shares liability because it benefited directly from the deployment of GPT-4o and played a role in bringing the model to market.This is the first known lawsuit to link ChatGPT to a homicide, though it follows a growing number of legal actions that claim the AI system has fostered delusions and contributed to suicides. OpenAI denies wrongdoing, emphasizing efforts to improve mental health safeguards and noting that newer models have significantly reduced inappropriate responses in emotionally sensitive conversations.The suit also names OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as a defendant and cites Soelberg's social media posts as evidence of his deteriorating mental state and dependence on the chatbot. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a court order to compel OpenAI to implement stronger safety measures. The law firm behind the case, Edelson PC, is also representing a similar lawsuit involving a California teenager's suicide allegedly linked to ChatGPT.OpenAI, Microsoft Sued Over Murder-Suicide Blamed on ChatGPT This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, Graham Steele, former Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Treasury and current academic fellow at Stanford Law School, discusses the implications of cryptocurrency and blockchain on the central banking functions of government. This is the eighth episode in our 11-part series, Technology vs. Government, featuring former California State Assemblymember Lloyd Levine.About Graham Steele:Graham Steele is an Academic Fellow at Stanford Law School's Rock Center for Corporate Governance. He has extensive experience at the highest levels of financial policy, having served as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where he was responsible for policy on banks, credit unions, insurance, fintech, and financial cybersecurity. Prior to his role at Treasury, he directed the Corporations and Society Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business. His formative policy experience was on Capitol Hill, where he served for nearly eight years on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, including as Chief Counsel for the Democratic Staff, working on the Dodd-Frank Act in response to the 2008 financial crisis.Interviewer:Lloyd Levine (Former California State Assemblymember, UCR School of Public Policy Senior Policy Fellow)Key Discussion Points:History Repeats Itself: Exploring how cryptocurrency echoes past eras of private money creation like the "Free Banking" and "shadow banking" eras, which often led to financial instability and government intervention.Crypto vs. Blockchain: A simple breakdown: cryptocurrency is the digital asset (like Bitcoin), while blockchain is the underlying technology that records the transactions.Public vs. Private Money: Why government-backed money (like the U.S. dollar) has inherent stability and consumer protections that private cryptocurrencies lack.Solving a Real Problem? Analyzing crypto's promise of faster, cheaper payments and greater financial inclusion against its current realities, such as high volatility and reliance on the traditional banking system.A Regulatory Wild West: The challenges of regulating a borderless, often anonymous system, including fraud, "rug pulls," and market manipulation.The Future of Crypto: Will it become a responsible financial tool, remain a niche investment, or continue to pose systemic risks?

The compliance industry continues to face headwinds as funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in jeopardy after the Department of Justice recently ruled that the bureau cannot request money from the Federal Reserve.  The DOJ's Nov. 7 ruling states that the “combine earnings of the Federal Reserve system” — laid out by the Dodd-Frank Act as the source of most of the CFPB's funding — refers to Fed profits. The Fed was last profitable in 2022.  It is unclear if the CFPB will be operational in January 2026. The bureau can request funding from Congress, but approval is uncertain. Government shutdown ends The ruling on CFPB funding came just days before the U.S. House voted Nov. 12 to end the longest government shutdown in United States history.  The end of shutdown, which stretched from Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, could prove fruitful for the auto industry because consumers may have delayed auto purchases during this time, experts say. The theory, in part, is evidenced by a 2.7% drop in consumer confidence in October and slowing new-car sales. Despite industry pressures, auto industry participants continue to see resilience.  Shifts in RV industry The RV industry also is optimistic for 2026, even as it continues to grapple with ongoing challenges such as falling registrations.  Industry leaders gathered in Las Vegas this month for RV Dealers Convention and Expo 2025 to discuss the effects of macroeconomic conditions, consumer sales trends and the ROI for AI integration. Listen as Auto Finance News Senior Associate Editor Truth Headlam and Associate Editor Aidan Bush unpack the past week's auto finance and powersports news.  

Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act is the foundation of open banking in the United States—giving individuals the right to access and share their own financial data with services of their choice. This rule seeks to increase consumer control, encourage competition, and make it easier to switch providers or use financial management tools. However, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—the agency responsible for implementing this provision—is now reconsidering how (or whether) it should be enforced. In today's discussion, we explore why Section 1033 has become a key focus of rulemaking and how changes to open banking policies could shift the balance of power between consumers, financial institutions, and emerging fintech companies.To look into this, Shane Tews spoke with Penny Lee, president and CEO of the Financial Technology Association. Penny is also the cofounder of K Street Capital—an angel investment group in Washington, DC—and served as a senior advisor for former US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. She brings more than two decades of experience in the private and public sectors, making for an informative conversation.

Newt talks with Vance Ginn, former associate director for economic policy at Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the economic impact of the government shutdown. They discuss the intricacies of government spending, the role of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the challenges of achieving a balanced budget. Ginn emphasizes the need for fiscal responsibility, highlighting the importance of reducing waste and inefficiencies within government operations. Their conversation also covers the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with Ginn arguing for a reduction in government intervention in consumer markets. Additionally, they address healthcare reform, advocating for a system that prioritizes patient care over bureaucracy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We've been told banks are the safest place for our money—but the truth tells a different story. Since the Dodd-Frank Act, banks now hold the power to seize deposits during an economic downturn, leaving your hard-earned cash at risk. In this episode of the Private Banking Strategies Podcast, Vance Lowe and Seth Hicks, Esq. break down … Continue reading Escape Bank Bail-Ins: How to Safeguard Your Wealth with Tax Advantages | Episode 131 →

A coalition of civil rights and small-business groups has filed suit against the Trump administration for halting a lending data rule mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Advocates say the rule is essential to preventing discrimination, while critics warn the rollback — alongside Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act — will widen the racial wealth gap. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A coalition of civil rights and small-business groups has filed suit against the Trump administration for halting a lending data rule mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Advocates say the rule is essential to preventing discrimination, while critics warn the rollback — alongside Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act — will widen the racial wealth gap. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Section 1033 of the Dodd Frank Act was finalized at the end of the Biden administration and would require banks to give consumers free access and control of their personal banking data.The rule had met legal pushback from the bank industry and the CFPB under the Trump administration planned to scrap it. But last week, the bureau said it will instead rewrite Section 1033.Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino discusses the news with Rohit Chopra, who served as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when the rule was finalized in 2024.

Section 1033 of the Dodd Frank Act was finalized at the end of the Biden administration and would require banks to give consumers free access and control of their personal banking data.The rule had met legal pushback from the bank industry and the CFPB under the Trump administration planned to scrap it. But last week, the bureau said it will instead rewrite Section 1033.Marketplace's Meghan McCarty Carino discusses the news with Rohit Chopra, who served as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when the rule was finalized in 2024.

Consumer advocacy groups led by Rise Economy filed a lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for not implementing a small-business data collection rule mandated by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and seeks to require the CFPB to collect and publish data on small-business loan applications, including demographic details and loan denials. Banking trade groups have also challenged the rule, citing compliance burdens, resulting in multiple court delays and an extended compliance deadline to July 2026. The case centers on the need for data to identify lending discrimination and credit access gaps for small businesses.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Everybody wants to win.    They want to get ahead and get a leg up.    But they have to do the work.    The year was 2010 and the Dodd Frank Act was passed and my felonious ass could not longer get a job.    I knew how to wash cars.    I knew how to deal drugs.    I knew how to do loans, but I could no longer do it.    I spent the best part of a year working my ass off to learn everything I could.     I didn't make any money.    I was just learning.     After a year had passed, I had created a whole new industry.    Podcasts.    Audiobooks.    Course creation.    Started hosting events and coaching business people.    If you want to do something more, you gotta be willing to do the work.    Get immersed in whatever it is you want in your life.    Crack a book.    Watch a video.    Implement what you learned.     If you want to win fo sho, you gotta do the work...........fo sho!    About the ReWire Podcast   The ReWire Podcast with Ryan Stewman – Dive into powerful insights as Ryan Stewman, the HardCore Closer, breaks down mental barriers and shares actionable steps to rewire your thoughts. Each episode is a fast-paced journey designed to reshape your mindset, align your actions, and guide you toward becoming the best version of yourself. Join in for a daily dose of real talk that empowers you to embrace change and unlock your full potential.    Learn how you can become a member of a powerful community consistently rewiring itself for success at https://www.jointheapex.com/   Rise Above

Hoover Institution fellow Jon Hartley and former FDIC Vice Chair Thomas Hoenig discuss Tom's career as an economist, as Vice Chair of the FDIC, President of the Kansas City Fed, topics including the global financial crisis, banking regulation, Glass-Steagall, Too Big To Fail, moral hazard, lender of last resort powers, Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act, capital requirements, deposit insurance after the Silicon Valley Bank regional banking crisis, and quantitative easing. Recorded on June 10, 2025. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information about the podcast, visit: https://www.hoover.org/podcast/capitalism-and-freedom?utm_source=podbean&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=cf21_podcast

Jon Hartley and Randal Quarles discuss Randy's career as a lawyer and in policy (including his time as Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Regulation) and topics such as the global financial crisis, Glass-Steagall, banking regulation, lender of last resort, Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act, capital requirements, the potential relaxation of Treasuries in the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR), deposit insurance after the Silicon Valley Bank regional banking crisis, and stablecoin regulation. Recorded on May 29, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Randal Quarles is the Chairman and co-founder of The Cynosure Group.  Before founding Cynosure, Mr. Quarles was a long-time partner of the Carlyle Group, where he began the firm's program of investments in the financial services industry during the 2008 financial crisis. From October 2017 through October 2021, Mr. Quarles was Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, serving as the system's first Vice Chairman for Supervision, charged specifically with ensuring stability of the financial sector.  He also served as the Chairman of the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) from December 2018 until December 2021; a global body established after the Great Financial Crisis to coordinate international efforts to enhance financial stability. In both positions, he played a key role in crafting the US and international response to the economic and financial dislocations of COVID-19, successfully preventing widespread global disruption of the financial system.  As FSB Chairman, he was a regular delegate to the finance ministers' meetings of the G-7 and G20 Groups of nations and to the Summit meetings of the G20.  As Fed Vice Chair, he was a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, the body that sets monetary policy for the United States. Earlier in his career, Mr. Quarles was Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, where he led the Department's activities in financial sector and capital markets policy, including coordination of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. Before serving as Under Secretary, Mr. Quarles was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, where he had a key role in responding to several international crises.  Mr. Quarles was also the U.S. Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, a member of the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, and a board representative for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. In earlier public service, he was an integral member of the Treasury team in the George H. W. Bush Administration that developed the governmental response to the savings and loan crisis. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Research Fellow at the UT-Austin Civitas Institute, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon is also the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes, and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star, among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list, and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper.  ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics.

Trump wants to rollback banking regulations - What could go wrong? If Trump were to roll back the banking rules put in place after the 2008 financial crisis (like those in the Dodd-Frank Act), several risks could arise. More fascism...Trump moves to get political control of doctors and scientists. ICE thugs grabbed a teen driving to volleyball practice and the town is outraged. The GOP's never-ending effort to repeal Obamacare continues.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency's funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress's annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court's treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB's future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency's funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission's 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel's actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel's turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president's constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump's legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision's reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don't align with the administration's agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey's Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have significantly reduced staffing in key divisions. The legal, investment management, and trading and markets offices experienced workforce cuts ranging from 15% to 19% over just a few weeks. Regional offices in Chicago and Denver also saw nearly 20% reductions. Overall, the SEC's full-time staff has shrunk by 12% since January, with agency chair Paul Atkins recently noting a 15% decrease since October.These losses come amid ongoing hiring freezes and budget restrictions. While Atkins suggested that some roles may be refilled, he did not dismiss the possibility of more cuts. In parallel, more than 20 SEC employees have been reassigned to focus on contract reviews, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative coordinated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. DGE has expanded its presence at SEC headquarters and is reviewing agency operations, particularly IT services, to identify further savings.The SEC declined to comment on the staffing reductions, though a spokesperson confirmed it is working with DGE to improve efficiency. The full implications of these staffing losses for the agency's regulatory functions remain unclear.SEC buyouts hit legal, investment offices hardest, data shows | ReutersMeta Platforms asked a federal judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit, arguing the agency failed to prove that the company holds an illegal monopoly in social media. The case, which centers on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claims these deals were aimed at neutralizing potential rivals and maintaining dominance in the market for apps used to share personal updates. The FTC wants to unwind those acquisitions, made more than a decade ago.Meta contends the FTC's case falls short of demonstrating that WhatsApp and Instagram posed meaningful competitive threats at the time of acquisition. The company pointed to internal evidence suggesting WhatsApp had no ambitions to become a social media platform and that Instagram actually thrived post-acquisition. Meta also argued the FTC has not clearly defined the relevant market, especially given competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter), which Meta says all compete for user attention.The company maintains that its products face constant pressure to evolve in response to competitors. If the judge denies Meta's request to end the case now, the trial will continue through June with closing arguments and final briefs expected afterward. A ruling that Meta holds an illegal monopoly would trigger a second trial focused on potential remedies.Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is the second movement of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich”, which translates roughly to “Strongly moving, but not too fast. Quite leisurely.” Composed in the late 1880s and premiered in 1889, Mahler's First Symphony marked his audacious entry into the world of symphonic writing. At once expansive and deeply personal, the work fuses Romantic tradition with the beginnings of Mahler's own, modern voice.The second movement—our focus this week—is a rustic Ländler, an Austrian folk dance form, reimagined with orchestral power and emotional complexity. Mahler, who was born in 1860 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew up surrounded by folk tunes and military marches, and these influences saturate this section of the symphony. It opens with swagger and energy, driven by bold rhythms and a sense of physicality, before softening into a slower trio section that offers brief lyrical repose.Though the movement has a lively surface, its contrasting moods reflect Mahler's signature ability to intertwine the playful and the profound. His orchestration here is vivid but never ornamental—every detail serves a dramatic or emotional purpose. Mahler's symphonies often contemplate mortality, memory, and transcendence, but this movement reminds us that he could also be joyful, ironic, and grounded in the sounds of real life.By the time of his death in 1911, Mahler had transformed the symphony into a vessel for existential expression, bridging the 19th and 20th centuries. This movement from his First hints at all that was to come. As our week closes, we leave you with this music—bold, earthy, and unmistakably Mahler.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today's podcast features Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). President Trump recently fired, without good cause, the two Democratic members of the FTC, leaving only two Republican members as commissioners. He did this even though the FTC Act provides that a commissioner may be fired by the President only for good cause and that the commission is to be governed by a bi-partisan 5-member commission This is the third time in the past few weeks that Trump has fired without good cause democratic members of other federal agencies; the other two being the National Labor Relations Board (The “NLRB”) and the Merit Selection Protection Board (The “MSPB”). The statutes governing those two agencies, like the FTC Act, allow the President to fire a member of the governing board for good cause only. The fired members of all three agencies initiated lawsuits in federal district court for the District of Columbia, seeking mandatory preliminary injunctions requiring those agencies to reinstate them with back pay. We discuss the status of the two lawsuits and how the outcome will turn on whether the Supreme Court will apply or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor, which held that the provision in the Constitution allowing the President to fire an FTC commissioner for good cause only did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. Conversely, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether the Supreme Court opinion in Seila Law, LLC V. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should apply to these two new cases. In Seila Law, the Supreme Court held on Constitutional grounds, that the President could fire without good cause the sole director of the CFPB even though the Dodd-Frank Act allowed the President to fire the sole director of the CFPB for good cause only. Until this gets resolved, the FTC will be governed only by two Republican commissioners who will constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting official business. Professor Calkins explains how a Supreme Court ruling in these two new cases upholding Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the agencies could enable the President to fire without good cause members of other multiple-member agencies, like the Federal Reserve Board. We then discuss the status of the following four final controversial FTC rule, some of which were challenged in court: the CARS Rule, the Click-to-Cancel Rule, the Junk Fee Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule. We also discuss the impact of President Trump's Executive Order requiring that all federal agencies, including so-called “independent” agencies, must obtain approval from the White House before taking any significant actions, like proposing or finalizing rules. Then, we discuss the status of enforcement investigations and litigation and whether any of them have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the FTC under Trump 2.0, whether any new enforcement lawsuits been filed, and what they involve. We discuss our expectation that the FTC will be a lot less active in the consumer protection enforcement area during Trump 2.0. We then discuss the impact on staffing because of DOGE-imposed reductions-in-force. Finally, we touch upon the status of pending antitrust enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, hosts the discussion.

Our special podcast show today deals primarily with a 112-page opinion and 3-page order issued on March 28 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a lawsuit brought, among others, by two labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The complaint alleged that Acting Director Vought and others were in the process of dismantling the CFPB through various actions taken since Rohit Chopra was fired and replaced by Acting Director Scott Bessent and then Acting Director Russell Vought. This process included, among other things, the termination of probationary and term employees and possibly another 1,300 or so employees through a reduction-in-force , the issuance of a stop work order, the closure of the CFPB's main office in DC and branch offices throughout the country, the termination of most third-party contracts, the decision not to request any additional funding from the Federal Reserve Board for the balance of the fiscal year and the voluntary dismissal of several enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Joseph Schuster, a Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, discuss each part of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jackson which, among other things, required the CFPB to re-hire all probationary and term employees who had been terminated, prohibited the CFPB from terminating any CFPB employee except for just cause (which apparently does not include lack of work because of the change in focus and direction of the CFPB), required the CFPB not to enforce a previous “stop work” order or reduction-in-force.  We observed that Judge Jackson's order has required the CFPB to maintain for now a work force that is not needed for the “new” CFPB. We also discuss that the preliminary injunction order does not require the CFPB to maintain any of the regulations promulgated or proposed by Rohit Chopra or to continue to prosecute any of the enforcement lawsuits brought by Director Chopra. DOJ filed a notice of appeal on March 29 and on March 31 filed a motion in the DC Court of Appeals to stay Judge Jackson's order. (After the recording of this podcast, the DOJ filed in the Court of Appeals a motion seeking a stay of Judge Jackson's order. Pending a hearing on April 9th, the Court issued an administrative stay of Judge Jackson's order. The 3-Judge panel is composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee.) A copy of the blog co-authored by Alan and Joseph is linked here. We also discuss another lawsuit initiated by the City of Baltimore and one other plaintiff against Acting Director Vought in Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to enjoin him from returning to the Federal Reserve Board or the Treasury funds held by the CFPB. The Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that it was not ripe for adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act because the CFPB never actually returned any funds. Finally, Alan expresses surprise that the Acting Director has not relied on the argument that all funds received by the CFPB after September, 2022 were unlawfully obtained because the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that the CFPB can be funded only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have only been huge combined losses of the Federal Reserve Banks since Sept 2022 which continue through today and are likely to continue through the foreseeable future.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Jesse Silverman and James Kim to discuss recent developments in New York's legislative efforts to strengthen its consumer financial protection laws. They delve into the recently introduced Fair Business Practices Act, which borrows aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act and seeks to expand the New York Attorney General's powers to mirror those of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and its potential impact on businesses and consumers. The discussion highlights the broader trend of states stepping up their consumer protection efforts in response to perceived federal regulatory relaxation. The episode also explores the increasing cooperation and personnel exchange between the CFPB and state regulators, emphasizing the growing influence of state-level enforcement in the consumer financial services landscape. Tune in to understand the implications of these legislative changes and how they might shape the future of consumer financial protection.

Chris critiques the Dodd-Frank Act and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, arguing that both have contributed to the financial crises and the consolidation of power within Wall Street. He discusses the historical context of these regulations, the role of government in forcing banks to make risky loans, and the implications of these policies on the economy. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

Emmanuel Daniel discusses the great financial transition and how America is leading the way in globalizing cryptocurrency by digitizing the dollar and how debt will play a key role. He comments on everything from memecoins, gold, and asset tokenization to the AI Arms Race (e.g. DeepSeek, OpenAI), DOGE, the BIS, and more! Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack Geopolitics & Empire · Emmanuel Daniel: Moving Toward the Digital Financialization of Everything #523 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics easyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.com Escape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics PassVult https://passvult.com Sociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.com Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites Emmanuel Daniel https://www.emmanueldaniel.com The Great Transition: The Personalization of Finance is Here https://www.emmanueldaniel.com/the-great-transition About Emmanuel Daniel Emmanuel Daniel is an author, advisor and a global thought leader on geopolitics, the future of finance and their impact on business and society. He was listed as a top 10 global influencer in the “Fintech Power50” list for 2021 and 2022. He is also a model train enthusiast. Emmanuel founded the research, publication and consulting house, TAB Global, in 1996. Through its platforms such as The Asian Banker, Wealth and Society, The Banking Academy and TABInsights, Emmanuel has extensive contacts with leaders in corporations and governments around the world. He has served, or is serving, in advisory or consulting roles for various public or private sector institutions and is a well regarded mentor and confidante in leadership circles. He won the Citibank Excellence in Business Journalism for Asia in 1999 for his work on the internet in banking. “The Asian Banker Summit” won the best finance conference from the Asian Conference and Summit Awards in 2012. He is regularly interviewed on BBC, CNBC and Bloomberg. In his first book, “The Great Transition – the personalization of finance is here” published in September 2022, Emmanuel outlines how the banking industry will evolve from being focused on platform technologies to a level of personalization never seen before. He describes the roles of cryptocurrencies, blockchain, gaming and other technologies in this transition. The book was written to help disruptor technologies in finance chart their course. The book features forewords written by former congressman Barney Frank, the co-author of the Dodd-Frank Act legislations that regulates the financial industry in the US today and Richard Sandor, an innovator widely regarded as the “father of financial futures”. His writings are also based on his extensive travel, now across 130 countries and counting. He posts regularly on his blog and is working towards his second book which is tentatively entitled “The Winning Civilization” and due for publication in 2024. As an entrepreneur, he was previously a member of the Entrepreneurs Organization (EO), a prestigious grouping of young business owners worldwide. Emmanuel was trained as a lawyer, has degrees from the National University of Singapore and the University of London, and attended a course on economics at Columbia University in New York. He divides his time between Singapore, Beijing and New York when not traveling extensively. *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.

Alex Rosado enters the Bullpen to discuss efforts to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act. Host: Dr. Rashad Richey (@rashad_richey) Bullpen guest: Alex Rosado *** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE  ☞  https://www.youtube.com/IndisputableTYT FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/IndisputableTYT TWITTER  ☞       https://www.twitter.com/IndisputableTYT INSTAGRAM ☞  https://www.instagram.com/IndisputableTYT Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast episode is a repurposing of Alan Kaplinsky's “fireside chat” with Kathy Kraninger, the Director of the CFPB during the second half of President Trump's presidency from December 2018 until January 2021. (This was originally the first half of a webinar we did on January 6, 2025 which was entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Supervision and Enforcement.” The January 6 webinar is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Next Thursday, we will release the second half of that webinar which will feature Ballard Spahr partners, John Culhane and Mike Kilgariff, who will take a deep dive into the expected changes in CFPB supervision and enforcement during President Trump's second term in office.) During her “fireside chat” with Alan, Kathy discussed the following things: (a) How she was nominated by Trump to be the Director and succeeded Mick Mulvaney, the acting Director appointed by Trump to succeed Richard Cordray as Acting Director; (b) Organizational and other changes made by Mulvaney and/or Kraninger, including a hiring freeze, appointments of new heads of departments, etc; (c) The practical impact on CFPB operations of the Supreme Court's opinion in the Seila Law case in which the Court held that the President had the right to remove the CFPB director without cause; (d) Her priorities as Director, including her regulatory, supervisory and enforcement agendas; (e) Her policy statements on “abusiveness”, supervisory expectations and COVID-19; (g) Her thoughts on what she anticipates will change at the CFPB once a new acting director chosen by Trump succeeds Rohit Chopra; and (h) Her thoughts on whether Congress should re-structure the CFPB's governance and funding. The “fireside chat” provides stakeholders in the CFPB insight into what may happen at the CFPB during Trump 2.0. There will, however, be some important differences between the circumstances that existed during the transition from Cordray to Mulvaney Kraninger during Traump 1.0 and the transition from Chopra to a new acting Director during Trump 2.0.. At the time when Mick Mulvaney became Acting Director, there were no pending lawsuits challenging CFPB final regs and other actions. During Mulvaney's term in office, a trade association of payday lenders sued the CFPB challenging the CFPB's payday lending rule and, in particular, its “ability to pay” requirement. The acting director appointed by Trump will inherit multiple pending lawsuits against the CFPB challenging many of the regs issued by the CFPB under Rohit Chopra's last two years as Director. The Acting Director will need to develop legislative (Congressional Review Act), judicial and regulatory strategies for dealing with the slough of regs, proposed regs and other written guidance issued by Chopra. The Acting Director will also need to quickly decide what position the CFPB will take with respect to the defense raised in at least 13 enforcement lawsuits claiming that the CFPB has been disabled from conducting business since September 2022 when there was no longer any “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” - a prerequisite to the Federal Reserve Board funding the CFPB under the Dodd-Frank Act. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Today's podcast episode is a repurposing of part one of our December 16 highly-attended and praised webinar consisting of Alan Kaplinsky's exclusive interview of David Silberman, who held several senior positions at the CFPB for almost 10 years under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Part two of our December 16 webinar, featuring Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Joseph Schuster, is to be released on January 9. They focus their attention on the impact of the election on the CFPB's regulations (final and proposed). Our December 16 webinar is the first part of our three-part intensive look at this transitional period for the CFPB. The goal of our three-part series is to help us predict what is in store for the CFPB during the next four years. As a former senior leader at the CFPB during the only other transition of the CFPB from a Democratic to a Republican administration led by former President Trump, Mr. Silberman has special insight about what is likely to happen to the CFPB during Trump 2.0. While nobody yet knows who Trump will nominate as the next CFPB director, Mr. Silberman makes the point that, of potentially greater importance, at least initially, is who Trump selects as the acting director. If what happened in Trump 1.0 is any indication, the acting director may end up serving for a lengthy period of time just like Mick Mulvaney served as acting director for a lengthy period of time before Kathy Kraninger was nominated by Trump, confirmed by the Senate and sworn-in as director. Under the Vacancy Reform Act, the acting director must be either a current senior officer of the CFPB or someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate for a different position. Among other things, Mr. Silberman addressed the following topics during his interview: 1.               What were some of the first steps that Mr. Mulvaney took when he became acting director and will they be replicated by a new acting director? 2.               How will a new acting director deal with the many lawsuits brought by trade groups challenging CFPB final rules issued by Director Chopra?  Will there be a distinction made between final rules in which district courts have ruled on motions for preliminary injunction and those where courts have not so ruled. Will there be distinctions made between final rules where courts have granted or denied injunctive relief?  Finally, will there be distinctions made between final rules mandated by Dodd-Frank and so-called discretionary rules? 3.               Which final rules are still subject to being overridden by the Congressional Review Act and what are the odds of that happening with respect to any of such rules? 4.               How will the new acting director deal with proposed rules as of January 20? 5.               How will the new acting director deal with CFPB enforcement investigations and lawsuits initiated by Chopra, including those which arguably “push the envelope” with respect to the CFPB's jurisdiction? 6.               Will the new acting director agree with many industry pundits that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Federal Reserve Board since September, 2022 in light of the language in the Dodd-Frank Act which permits funding of the CFPB only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have been no such combined earnings since September 2022 and the likelihood that no such combined earnings are anticipated in the near future.  Does this impact actions taken by the CFPB since September 2022? 7.               What role, if any, will the White House play in directing or influencing CFPB policy?  What impact, if any, might the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have on the CFPB? 8.               Do you expect the new acting director to initiate any rulemakings other than those required by Dodd-Frank? 9.               Will the new acting director be more supportive of innovation than Chopra and, if so, how will that be reflected? Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Discover the future of dentistry as Dr. Sepand H, the visionary CEO and founder of Total Health Dental Care, redefines what it means to run a Dental Service Organization (DSO). From aspiring software engineer to groundbreaking dentist, Dr. H shares his journey and unveils a tech-enabled model that promises to enhance patient care. His revolutionary approach aims to seamlessly connect dentists and specialists, creating an exceptional patient experience that boosts both retention and profitability. Join us as Dr. H sets the stage for a new era in dentistry, challenging the limits of traditional practices.Technology's transformative power takes center stage, illuminating a path forward for DSOs grappling with modern challenges like wage inflation and capped fees. Since 2021, embracing innovation has become a necessity, not a choice. Learn how advanced tech solutions can refine operational processes, allowing for better staff compensation and a more satisfying patient experience through automation and online services. Dr. H passionately advocates for native technology solutions tailored to the dental industry's intricacies, highlighting their potential to streamline operations and revolutionize business models.Navigate the labyrinth of banking regulations and macroeconomic dynamics with us, focusing on their implications for the growth of DSOs. The conversation delves into the effects of the Dodd-Frank Act and the critical role of private equity in dental service expansion. With insights into potential interest rate changes and persistent wage growth, Dr. H discusses strategic financial planning to maintain healthy margins. By integrating technology and adjusting fees, DSOs can adapt and thrive amidst economic uncertainties. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of technology, finance, and dentistry, and leave with valuable insights for your own practice.If you need help finding the perfect location or your ready to invest in commercial real estate, email us at admin@leadersre.com Sign up for a FREE vulnerability analysis and lease renewal services View our library on apple podcasts or REUniversity.org. Connect on Facebook. Commercial Real Estate Secrets is ranked in the top 50 podcasts on real estate

  In today's podcast episode, we're joined by Alex Johnson, Founder of Fintech Takes, and Paige Paridon, Senior Vice President, Senior Associate General Counsel & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs at Bank Policy Institute, to take a deep dive into the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Open Banking Rule. The CFPB has issued a groundbreaking final rule implementing Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, significantly expanding consumer access to their financial data. This new Open Banking Rule will have far-reaching implications for financial institutions, fintech companies, and consumers alike. In this episode, we'll explore the key aspects of this landmark regulation, such as: 1. The scope, rule requirements, and compliance deadlines 2. Complexities of implementing new interfaces and data security measures 3. Potential pitfalls and best practices to mitigate risks, including a lawsuit challenging the legality of the rule 4. How the rule can foster innovation and enhanced consumer experiences 5. The impact of presidential election and presumed appointment of new Acting Director of CFPB Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by Gregory Szewczyk and Hilary Lane, Partners in Ballard's Privacy and Data Security Group.

Chris discusses the enduring impact of Barack Obama's presidency, focusing on key legislation such as Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other major policy initiatives. Highlighting how these measures fundamentally changed American healthcare, business, and government, Markowski argues that these policies continue to shape the nation's economic and regulatory landscape. He also shares insights on the challenges future administrations face in dismantling this legacy and restoring growth. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

By Adam Turteltaub It's one thing if a company wants to protect its trade secrets. But, what if it wants to keep its dirty little secrets from getting out? Then, the SEC may want to step in. Stephen Cohen (LinkedIn), partner at Sidley Austin, and a former senior leader in the Enforcement Division at the SEC, explain in this podcast that, to understand the issue, we need to look back to the Dodd-Frank Act. The law led to the SEC whistleblower program and included anti-retaliation authority. The SEC believed it had implicit authority to punish efforts that impeded direct communication by whistleblowers with the Commission and its staff. Both the SEC and CFTC have created similar rules prohibiting organization and individuals from taking any action that inhibits someone communicating directly with the SEC about a possible securities law violation. The SEC has interpreted that to mean that language in non-disclosure and severance agreements, codes of conduct, policies and elsewhere that either require employees to report issues internally rather than to the government, or require non-disclosure to the government as a condition of severance, are illegal. Several companies have since run afoul of the SEC on this issue, with cases going back to 2015. So what should companies do? For one, make sure that they are properly balancing the need to protect confidentiality without interfering with whistleblowing. Watch for language prohibiting disclosure of information to third parties that doesn't provide an exception for the government. Be on the lookout, too, for policies requiring departing employees to attest that they did not disclose information to the government. Look, too, at what your employment agreements say. Likewise, watch what language you include in agreements with your third parties. The SEC looks askance, there, too, to language that it perceives would inhibit reporting of wrongdoing. Listen in to learn more about this evolving issue and its many pitfalls. Listen now

Discover the secrets to wealth preservation through the eyes of Andy Schectman, owner of Miles Franklin Precious Metals, as he shares his compelling journey from humble beginnings to achieving over $10 billion in sales. Andy's story is a testament to resilience and vision, starting from selling life insurance policies to borrowing $60,000 to launch his company. Listen closely as he also discusses his friendship with Robert Kiyosaki and their shared mission to prioritize one's future self, providing invaluable lessons in investing in precious metals.We then shift gears to the complex world of banking and financial stability. The warning signs of bank failures loom large as we dissect the implications of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the unsettling potential of bank bail-ins. We highlight real-world examples, like the failure of the First National Bank of Lindsay, Oklahoma, and the contrasting treatment of larger banks, stirring a conversation on public awareness and the role of precious metals as steadfast assets amidst economic turmoil. Insights from financial heavyweights like Stanley Druckenmiller and Paul Tudor Jones underscore the enduring strength of gold and silver, even against a strong dollar.As the episode progresses, we navigate the turbulent waters of global financial systems and the shifting landscape of economic power. The role of the US dollar as the world reserve currency is put under the microscope, alongside the BRICS' emerging influence and the decline of the petrodollar. We also delve into the strategic movements in the global silver market, with countries like Russia and China making significant plays that could signal a global power shift. Through these discussions, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolving role of precious metals and central bank digital currencies in shaping the future of global finance. Join us for a thought-provoking examination of these critical issues and their potential long-term impact on international relations and financial stability.

Jane Barratt, Chief Advocacy Officer and Head of Global Public Policy at MX Technologies, Inc., discusses the impending game-changing regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to implement Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

On May 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cantero v. Bank of America, reversing and remanding the case to the Second Circuit. Rather than articulating a bright line test for preemption, the Supreme Court instructed the circuit court to conduct a “nuanced analysis” to determine whether the National Bank Act preempts a New York state law that requires the payment of 2% interest on mortgage escrow accounts. Per the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit must apply the preemption standard described in the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that a state consumer financial law is preempted “only if” it discriminates against national banks in comparison with state banks; is preempted by another Federal law; or “prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers,” as determined “in accordance with the legal standard for preemption in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States” in Barnett Bank, N.A. v. Nelson. See 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1). We open today's podcast episode, which repurposes a recent webinar roundtable covering the Cantero decision, with a new preface by moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group. This preface provides an update on an important post-Cantero development: a Ninth Circuit opinion issued on August 23 in another preemption case, Kivett v. Flagstar Bank. Alan explains why the Ninth Circuit's new opinion in Kivett applies a standard that is totally inconsistent with the instructions provided by the Supreme Court in Cantero. Today's episode then proceeds with a discussion featuring Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Partner Joseph Schuster, and four attorneys who each filed an amicus brief in Cantero. These experts share their reactions and explore potential next steps and possible outcomes as the Second Circuit and other courts proceed with efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's Cantero mandate.

In this episode of the Road to Growth podcast, we are pleased to introduce you to Emmanuel Daniel . Emmanuel is an author, entrepreneur and corporate advisor. He is a futurist, a global thought leader in the future of finance and its impact on business and society. He was listed as a top 10 global influencer in the “Fintech Power50” list for 2021 and 2022. He is also a model train enthusiast. Emmanuel founded the research, publication and consulting house, TAB Global, in 1996. Through its platforms such as The Asian Banker, Wealth and Society, The Banking Academy and TAB Insights, Emmanuel has had extensive contact with leaders in banking and finance around the world. He has served, or is serving in advisory or consulting roles for various public or private sector institutions at any time and is a well regarded mentor and confidante in leadership circles. He won the Citibank Excellence in Business Journalism for Asia in 1999 for his work on the internet in banking. “The Asian Banker Summit” won the best finance conference from the Asian Conference and Summit Awards in 2012. He is sometimes interviewed on BBC, CNBC and Bloomberg. In his first book, “The Great Transition – the personalization of finance is here” published in September 2022, Emmanuel outlines how the banking industry will evolve from being focused on platform technologies to a level of personalization never seen before. He describes the roles of cryptocurrencies, blockchain, gaming and other technologies in this transition. The book was written to help disruptor technologies in finance chart their course. The book features forewords written by former congressman Barney Frank, the co-author of the Dodd-Frank Act legislations that regulates the financial industry in the US today and Richard Sandor, an innovator widely regarded as the “father of financial futures”. His writings are also based on his extensive travel to more than 110 countries, and counting. He posts regularly on his blog and is working towards his second book which is tentatively entitled “The Winning Civilization” and due for publication in 2024. As an entrepreneur, he was previously a member of the Entrepreneurs Organization (EO), a prestigious grouping of young business owners worldwide. Emmanuel was trained as a lawyer, has degrees from the National University of Singapore and the University of London, and attended a course on economics at Columbia University in New York. He travels widely and divides his time between Singapore, Beijing and New York. Learn more and connect with Emmanuel Daniel by visiting him on   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/FkPiiSp9skZX6GXL/?mibextid=WC7FNe Youtube: @emmanueldanielauthor Linkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/emmanuel-daniel-5764482 Twitter: @emmanueldaniel   Be sure to follow us on Twitter: Twitter.com/to_growth on Facebook: facebook.com/Road2Growth   Subscribe to our podcast across the web: https://www.theenriquezgroup.com/blog Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2Cdmacc iTunes: https://apple.co/2F4zAcn Castbox: http://bit.ly/2F4NfQq Google Play: http://bit.ly/2TxUYQ2 Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKnzMRkl-PurAb32mCLCMeA?view_as=subscriber   If you are looking to be a Guest on Podcasts please click below  https://kitcaster.com/rtg/  For any San Diego Real Estate Questions Please Follow Us at web: www.TheEnriquezGroup.com Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKnzMRkl-PurAb32mCLCMeA or Call : 858 -345 - 7829 Recently reduced properties in San Diego County * Click **** bit.ly/3cbT65C **** Here* ************************************************************ Sponsor = www.MelodyClouds.com

A December report issued by staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discusses several potential modifications to the accredited investor definition, as suggested by sources like the Investor Advisory Committee and the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee.  The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 requires the SEC to review the definition every four years in light of changes in the economy. The goal is to maintain sufficient protection for unsophisticated investors while providing for investor participation in exempt offerings that play an important role in innovation and economic growth.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's show, we are joined again by Bob Long, CEO of StepStone Private Wealth to discuss the basics of private credit, how the Dodd-Frank Act affected the banking industry, what types of deals StepStone is pursuing, why private credit earns higher yields, and much more! Find complete show notes on our blogs... Ben Carlson's A Wealth of Common Sense Michael Batnick's The Irrelevant Investor Feel free to shoot us an email at animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com with any feedback, questions, recommendations, or ideas for future topics of conversation.   Check out the latest in financial blogger fashion at The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com Past performance is not indicative of future results. The material discussed has been provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal or investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security or strategy. The investment strategy and themes discussed herein may be unsuitable for investors depending on their specific investment objectives and financial situation. Information obtained from third-party sources is believed to be reliable though its accuracy is not guaranteed.   Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices