Deregulation=Removal of Safety Rails

Repeal of Glass-Steagall
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 forced commercial banks to refrain from investment banking activities to protect depositors from potential losses through stock speculation. Glass-Steagall aimed to prevent a repeat of the 1929 stock market crash and the wave of commercial bank failures.

Immediacy of IPOs

Prior to the Dotcom boom of the late 1990s, companies were usually required to demonstrate three consecutive years of profitability before going public, but despite the resulting disaster that rule was never restored.

There were also longstanding rules that a company’s shares needed to have been traded for at least several months before it could be added to a major market index. This protected passive American investors, including insurance companies and pension funds, from being automatically stuffed with a newly issued and volatile stock.

NASDAQ changed that rule

Getting added (or removed) from the S&P 500 is a big deal, but it generally only happens four times a year, and there are membership criteria. To join, a company must have been profitable for the last four quarters as a whole and in the most recent quarter specifically with a market capitalization of at least $22.7 billion. It also must meet float and volume criteria. Companies need to be based in the United States and trade on one of several approved U.S. stock exchanges.

Stock Buybacks

The 1982 rule provided “safe harbor” protection as long as a company bought back no more than 25% of its average daily volume over the previous four weeks and didn’t buy its stock at the beginning or end of the day’s trading. The SEC Commissioners argued at the time that the rule would encourage higher stock prices thereby benefiting investors across the board.

*Care to guess who the SEC Chairman was in 1982? John Shad. *

John Shad was a former executive with E.F. Hutton. It seems odd that someone who worked for a company that directly benefited from the rule change (higher prices equals higher commissions) would be in charge of the agency created to protect investors. In hindsight, it seems like a massive conflict of interest, but I digress.

The reality is that stock buybacks have helped the wealthiest 1% get even richer over the past 36 years.
Much more at the above link.

Before 1982, stock buybacks were largely considered illegal in the United States due to regulations put in place to prevent market manipulation. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforced these rules to ensure fair practices in the stock market, which aimed to protect investors from companies artificially inflating their stock prices. Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, companies were prohibited from buying back their own shares, as this could create a misleading impression of demand for their stock.

This regulatory environment created a significant deterrent for corporations contemplating buybacks. Instead, companies often focused on reinvesting profits into business expansion or paying dividends. The landscape began to change when the SEC introduced Rule 10b-18 in 1982, which allowed companies to repurchase their shares under specific conditions, marking a significant shift in corporate finance strategies.

This strategy has gained popularity over the decades, helping companies boost their stock prices while still providing flexibility to manage excess cash. By 2020, stock buybacks had reached record levels, demonstrating how much the landscape had shifted since the restrictive policies of the early 20th century.

In summary, the historical context surrounding stock buybacks illustrates a gradual move from strict regulation to acceptance as a legitimate corporate finance tool.

  • It Creates a False Market: Buybacks create artificial demand, propping up the stock price and painting a misleading picture of health for outside investors.
  • It’s a Tool for Insiders: Executives could use buybacks to pump the stock before cashing out their own options, directly profiting from the manipulation.

The ban on buybacks was a foundational piece of the New Deal financial architecture. But the world, and economic theory, evolved.

Most CEO pay is tied to stock prices and earnings per share (EPS). Buybacks directly boost EPS by reducing the number of shares outstanding. They also often provide upward pressure on the stock price. So, executives can engineer key metrics that trigger their own massive bonus payouts—using company cash. It’s a legal, board-approved feedback loop

12 Likes

Putting the regulations into place wasn’t pre-emptive forethought. Each regulation was put in place to prevent future harm AFTER harm had already taken place. Kind of like seat belts were mandated in cars after thousands of people had already been killed.

Removing the regulations leads to the harms returning.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama in July 2010 as the primary legislative response to the 2007–2008 global financial crisis. It represented the most comprehensive overhaul of U.S. financial regulation since the New Deal.

Details of the law can be Googled.

Over the decade following its passage, the law came under sustained opposition from Wall Street lobbying group, financial institutions, and conservative lawmakers, who argued that its compliance burdens chilled lending and harmed regional banks. Many rollbacks of the law occurred through legislative actions, administrative rule tweaks, and judicial decisions. These can also be Googled.

The most significant direct blow to Dodd-Frank occurred under President Donald Trump with the passage of the bipartisan Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) in May 2018. There were also a bunch of regulatory changes that softened the Dodd-Frank Act implementation in practice.

The real-world impact of the 2018 deregulation became apparent in early 2023 during the failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency has been weakened under the guise of executive agency discretion.

Rules were put in place to prevent future harm AFTER previous harm had demonstrated the need. Taking away the rules is like removing the seat belt law. Eventually the same problems will recur.

Wendy

11 Likes

I read the above then think about AI. AI definitely needs to be regulated. Especially as AI have and can attempt illegal acts.

And also human use of AI for nefarious crimes.

Will our government act preemptively? Or will they wait until the damage occurs?

I think you mean “safety rails”

When you wrote that they were removing “safety railings”, I thought DOGE was removing the handrailing from the stair wells.

intercst

1 Like

It’s exceptionally rare that regulations come before development. Nuclear power, maybe. Hard to think of another, except where regulations were instituted for one segment of an industry before another segment developed (railroads, maybe._

There seems to be an entire cohort of people who think there are bureaucrats just sitting around in Washington with nothing better to do than write rules for the sheer joy of it. In fact regulations happen because of failure: houses fall down, so building codes get written. Airplanes fall from the skin, so pilots get licensed.

There are surely times when regulation are poorly written, and times when they become outdated or were unnecessary after all (walking in front of early cars with flags so as not to scare horses, for instance) but mostly they exist for a reason: speed limits in school zones, OSHA requirements for workplace safety, rules for banks to follow so they don’t end up broke (and bankrupt their depositors.)

The one about separating investment banking from commercial banking was a good one, even with the FDIC, it still leaves the public on the hook when an investment bank goes toes up instead of punishing the management, board, and investors who enabled it.

Stock buybacks is another, which should be permitted only under the tightest of rules, designed to stop CEOs from enriching themselves at shareholder expense. Given that most shares are now held institutionally, and they rarely, if ever, vote against management whim, there needs to be a harder line drawn to stop abuse - which is, to put it mildly, everywhere.

5 Likes