Talk:Volcker Rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Rule" is capitalized in press articles[edit]

"Rule" is capitalized in press articles. See references in article.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Action Items[edit]

-Add Criticisms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some possible areas to flesh out this article:

--Adding a section with a more detailed description of the Volcker Rule itself.

--Adding more references to the article

--Adding a History section which gives the context in which the proposals came about - the bailouts, the economic crisis, etc.

--Adding a 'Congressional Action' section to what action has actually been taken to implement the proposed regulations (this could wait until Congress actually takes some actual action).

This could be added now with recent happenings James Kidd (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--Optional: related legislation - could discuss other proposed financial reforms floating through Congress or the relationship of the Volcker Rule to Glass-Steagall.

Maybe I ought to actually read the article - already in there. Perhaps 'Historical Antecedents' could become more general, and thus include a bit more background from the history section mentioned above, as well as other related financial reform legislation. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A recent addition said the bill coming out of Dodd's committee contained the Volcker rule - I believe this is partially inaccurate, and there's no source here supporting this. Comments? Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Further review shows this statement in the article to be completely inaccurate. There was an attempt to introduce the Volcker rule into the bill via the Merkley-Levin amendment that failed when various Republican senators maneuvered to make sure it didn't get a vote. I'll remove the current statement and add sourced facts to the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
But, a modified version of the Volcker Rule did make it into Dodd-Frank. This should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Senate Banking committee chairman, Chris Dodd was skeptical about including the "Volcker rule" in the Financial Regulatory Reform bill, so that's probably why there wasn't a vote in the Banking committee. Now the Obama administration refuses to consider any changes to the Financial Regulatory Reform bill, so debate over the Volcker rule is effectively at a standstill. (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Davis Polk mention unnecessary?[edit]

A line mentioning that law firm Davis Polk produced a lot of paperwork around the proposed rules was recently added to the article. This doesn't seem to add anything to the article, and seems vaguely promotional. If no one has any compelling reasons why this should be in here, I'm going to remove it.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Background section[edit]

The article really needs something on the background of why Volcker pushed for the rule. I'm changing the section on the board to background, since the economic board doesn't really deserve its own section in this article - it's more background as to what Volcker was doing and why.Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Partisan Views of the legislation/Tom McMahon quotation[edit]

There has been a disagreement on the page regarding the McMahon quote. I think this quote, which gives the liberal perspective, balances the conservative perspective given in the previous paragraph, about republican concerns regarding the law's impact. If there's a better way to do this, I'm open, though I do think that political views of the legislation and those seeking to support or hinder it are entirely relevant. I reverted the deletion of the quote, because the reason given, that the quote wasn't relevant to the article seems incorrect - one could argue about POV, it seems to me, but not relevance.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see that it's relevant, but I see no question of a POV violation. As I see it, it's not referring specifically to the Volcker Rule, but to the Act in general. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I went back and read the quote from the Reuters article, and I took it to be referring directly to efforts to weaken the Volcker rule, given that the article is specifically focused on that, and not on Dodd-Frank or financial reform in general. I'm not attached to the quote though - more to the idea that the article is more informative if it states that the two sides of the argument: Republicans say the rule will make US banks less competitive, while liberals counter by saying that the rule is needed to protect the system and that Repubs are in the pockets of Wall Street. That information certainly could be given without the quote.Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource BusinessWeek and the Charlie Rose (talk show)[edit] (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New York Review of Books resource, relating to the Late-2000s recession contributing factors[edit]

Financial Reform: Unfinished Business November 24, 2011 by Paul Volcker - October 27, 2011. (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This could definitely contribute useful material to the article - where do you see this material being added? Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resource[edit] Where Is the Volcker Rule? December 15, 2011, 5:00 AM by Simon Johnson (economist) (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource[edit]

The 2012 Regulatory and Market Landscape ... 'Volcker Rule' Boon or Bane? It Depends Which Side of Street You're On January 3, 2012 by Scott Patterson Wall Street Journal. (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Add wikilink[edit]

Americans for Progressive Change requested, per Redlink. (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the opinions of the non-notable group are relevant. Perhaps it would be better to remove its opinion from the article entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was this changed?[edit]

[1] to [2] ? (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding material from Silber's biography[edit]

I notice that Silber's new biography of Volcker, which contains quite a bit of material on the Volcker rule, isn't used as a source here, and Volcker's relevant views from that book aren't mentioned. Has anyone read the biography that would have material to contribute here? I'll do this down the road at some point, but if anyone else wants to, this would be a good place from which to expand the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What's missing from this article is why the Rule is needed now[edit]

Tried to find a reliable source that says this: "Volcker Rule fixes what Commodities Futures Modernization Act did when it deregulated derivatives" -- it would be synthesis from the articles I read. What's missing from this article is why the Rule is needed now -- it wasn't necessary before the CFMA. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I am going to look for some articles and references on the need for the rule going forward. I agree that it would add to the article. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comma would help in 'Proposal'[edit]

In the 'Proposal' section 'a bank or institution that owns a bank' might be less ambiguous with commas 'a bank, or institution that owns a bank,'. I read it at first as meaning '(a bank or institution)(that owns a bank)' (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


The effects section is surely incomplete. As the description says, the exodus a big time bankers was an obvious outcome of the Volcker Rule, so much so that their leaving was nearly written in the law.

In this setting the economic effects are much more important. Have banks been receiving consistently safe returns since this law? Have they been turning smaller profits, and therefore paying smaller interest rates? Has the economy changed in any way that can be directly related to this amendment? And the list goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeheiler1997 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Quarles nomination[edit]

The intention of Trump administration to weaken the rule seems worthy of inclusion, particularly as relates to the Randal Quarles Fed nomination. Thoughts here? Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)