ever and iran sat down with us earlier today to talk about dodd frank and the politics of money you won't want to miss that one and ever wonder what goes on behind the doors of the gilded doors that is a goldman sachs we've got the guy who can tell you all for stephen man does it work to goldman for more than a decade and joins me in studio today to discuss his new book but for now let's get to the. i was a look at last year the federal reserve said it wouldn't raise short term interest rates until after the jobless rate dropped below six point five percent but according to new research the fed suggested it could keep short term interest rates near zero for longer if they lower the threshold for the unemployment rate now these graphs that you're seeing right now these are from the wall street journal and they show how the fed is trying to thread the needle between short term interest rates and inflation the research argues that the market's threshold for rate increases could be more effective if it were lowered from six point five percent to five point five percent. elsewhere tesla is dow

they expressed them when dodd frank was being considered. we are working very hard to address the concerns around this role -- this rule. we didn't wear likely to be able to do so. -- we think that we are likely to be able to do so. we want to address the concerns that people have so that it won't be necessary to repeal the rule. that is my hope. they're certainly trying to do that. >> what is your timeframe on that? once you are confirmed? >> this is something we hope to get out hopefully later this year. >> you said you could do that without changing the section in question? >> i believe that is the case. we will be able to address those concerns. i understand the concerns. we are trying very hard. i've see share chairman bernanke's viewpoint? >> i believe so about those concerns that are there. we need to address them. we need to do so and we will. >> since the start of the qe, the financial markets have responded to pronouncements by the fed. are you concerned that the markets are too driven by speeches and pronouncements from central ba

dodd/frank is a really mixed bag.ot of very important and powerful and constructive paradigms in dodd/frank. for example, moving derivatives to clearing houses, which create more transparent and fair markets. the consumer protection part of dodd/frank is well intended, but it also takes away consumer choice. and i had think that's a material flaw in the framework of dodd/frank. we've moved away from a structure of making sure consumers are adequately and fairly informed of their choices, to a structure where consumers just don't have a choice. and i think that's a real setback for financial services. i think one of the challenges that we have right now is an industry, is the fed's policies have been really supported to our industry in a really clear and powerful way. it's to help the private equity firms with their portfolios, the hedge fund managers with their portfolios, the bank rebuild their balance sheets, where we've seen the wealthy in america become wealthier. and the fed hasn't done this to help our industry.

well i mean i guess after i was out of the game and brings in some cases as i was when dodd frank was passed i looked at a lot of the legislation and wondered how do they keep getting away with this stuff particularly the reform bills the reform bills being you know well intentioned by some people but not well intentioned by others so as a lobbyist or a former lobbyist i often looked at what was going on scratch my head wondering how they keep getting away with this stuff not necessarily thinking well gee i wish i could go back and be a lobbyist that's not my interest at all but thinking at times as you mentioned well maybe if i were a lobbyist i would really be able to cash in on this multitude of unbelievable loopholes that are that are sitting within the bill now finally i want to ask you this eugene scalia who is the son of supreme court justice antonin scalia he is known as the pit bull of lobbyists and one of the best there is when it comes to the financial services industry if you need something done in the financial services industry you call him and who in your estimation is

ever and iran sat down with us earlier today to talk about dodd frank and the politics of money you won't want to miss that one and ever wonder what goes on behind the doors of the gilded doors that is the goldman sachs we've got the guy who can tell you off or stephen man doesn't work to goldman for more than a decade and joins me in studio today to discuss his new book but for now let's get to the. i was a look at last year the federal reserve said it wouldn't raise short term interest rates until after the jobless rate dropped below six point five percent but according to new research the fed suggested it could keep she. term interest rates near zero for longer if you lower the threshold for the unemployment rate now these graphs that you're seeing right now these are from the wall street journal and they show how the fed is trying to thread the needle between short term interest rates and inflation the research argues that the market's threshold for rate increases could be more effective if it were lowered from six point five percent to five point five percent elsewhere tesla is down

and so really the -- i believe that dodd frank gives regulators, if they have the courage to use it, the ability to come in and the authority to say, we didn't have -- when lehman went down, to come in and guarantee liabilities or inject capital as part of an orderly resolution process. it doesn't tell you how long the orderly resolution process should last. and i -- i don't believe the public would be as angry if the crisis -- if the economy hadn't turned way down and if they weren't suffering. they wouldn't be as angry if banks were propped up, failed banks in their current form. which is what david got in to with the perception of the american public. they don't understand why an institution fails, should be bailed out, propped up in its current form. i think regulators have an important tool. but i frankly, you know, it's interesting, when i go through this every time someone says something, i want to do what barney did, stand up and make a comment or interject because the comment was made, well, we don't have orderly liquidation authority, it looks like we have the basics, but w

dodd/frank also, though, made you do that. it was part of the process. there has been criticism, i'm sure you read it in the report, we're not doing that on other things. you were made to do that on one and the other it isn't occurring. all of us want the same thing, we want good practices out there. i wondered if you wanted to publicly respond to the report on that issue. >> i would. what i would say is several things. i think in general what the bipartisan center said where you engage in a process that involves more openness and broader input, it tends to be a better process. you learn more and come away with better rules. that has been the process we've consistently followed on every one of our rule makings, including remittance rules where we went back and redid it to fix problems pointed out to us on all of our mortgage rules not just qm rules. we also have in other areas where we weren't obliged to do so gone out and sought significant public input. for example, we're going to be moving forward with debt collection rules. we're starting with a requ

david beat goliath with the passage of dodd-frank. we did that together. americans for financial reform, the roosevelt institute and so many of you in this room. i am confident that david can beat goliath on too big to fail. we just have to pick up the slingshot again. it's good to see all of you here. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> sure. let me just make sure. i never own my own schedule. we want to do questions for just a minute? is that okay? holding up two fingers which i think means two questions. >> thank you so much. so there's a microphone on the side that people can introduce themselves and ask their question briefly. that would be wonderful. >> okay. thanks, lisa. >> hi -- [inaudible] with the other 98%, and i was hoping you could talk about the part of your bill that takes away the derivatives during bankruptcy. i was hoping you might be able to elaborate on why you put that in there. >> so the reason that is in there, as some of our bankruptcy experts this the room know, is that in effect wha

because the mortgage market interestly when dodd-frank was written. and it was responding to a crisis, you know, in the economy that was caught by an overheated mortgage market that became pathological in various respects and a lot of very almost crazily irresponsible practices that have become, you know, very widespread. by the time we came to write the rules to implement dodd-frank we're now looking at a mortgage market that could hardly be more different. it's a market with credit that is real cri tying. this is what happened when you have a boom and a bust and a crash. mortgage lending was pulled back significantly and what we learned from getting an exceptionally broad range of input is that access to credit is a very significant problem that we're going to have to pay attention to here. it isn't just adding new consumer protections if credit is going to shrink even more. that is currently one of the big problems in the mortgage in helping markets. so that was notable to us. and i think it will inform our approach to all rules. as i said we can w

dodd/frank also, though, made you do that. it was part of the process. there has been criticism, i'm sure you read it in the report, we're not doing that on other things. you were made to do that on one and the other it isn't occurring. all of us want the same thing, we want good practices out there. i wondered if you wanted to publicly respond to the report on that issue. >> i would. what i would say is several things. i think in general what the bipartisan center said where you engage in a process that involves more openness and broader input, it tends to be a better process. you learn more and come away with better rules. that has been the process we've consistently followed on every one of our rule makings, including remittance rules where we went back and redid it to fix problems pointed out to us on all of our mortgage rules not just qm rules. we also have in other areas where we weren't obliged to do so gone out and sought significant public input. for example, we're going to be moving forward with debt collection rules. we're starting with a requ

we've had dodd-frank.e've got this issue a numb of issues still related to that and other issues too. one particular thing i want to ask you about, the volcker rule this issue of financial institutions using their own money, proprietary trading. i think you've said you want outlines from the regulate yorns this by the end of the year. >> i don't want outlines, i want the rule. >> what's your expectation now by the end of the year? is there clarity? >> i'm optimist exwe'll see a rule by the end of the year. i've met on a regular basis with regulators. five different agencies have to come to the same place. it's a complicated process. but it has to come to closure. it was an important part of dodd-frank. i think it's important in terms of financial regulatory policy. i think it's important in terms of confidence and government. these processes can't go on forever. if you look at the period of time from dodd-frank being enacted until now, there were a couple of years where every effort to delay the implementa

congress to repeal dodd frank. for the last year we have seen a different and vernon. we have seen an environment that need for certainty and acceptance, that dodd frank is the law of the land has replaced the effort to delay and perhaps repeal it. but i became secretary i moved in on that opportunity and pulled the regulators together and said you need to figure out what it is that are the differences between agencies and we have to come together every few weeks to talk through the issues. you need to make decisions. the major issues are resolved. is aare figuring out it complicated piece of business. on the one hand they have to preserve the ability of firms to make markets and on the other ofd because of the policy stopping proprietary trading, needing to shut down the kind of risky positions that firms were holding on their own account. i am optimistic that they are getting there. >> you expect there to be -- the role will be agreed and published by the end of the year. >> that is what i have urged them to do a

dodd frank act was signed into law in the way congress passed 2010. dodd-frank -- title 14 of the law would have taken effect of its own accord at the beginning of january 2013. 10 months ago now. so, it would've had a new framework. it is not as though our qm rule has altered the status quo and without it the status will would -- the status quo would have continued to operate as it was. change was coming. it was embedded in the statute. fact that we wrote that rule delayed the implementation of the changes in the market by one year. we have given industry an extra year beyond the two years to begin to get ready for this. so the vast majority of institutions are ready. it is important that we continue to move ahead. much of industry has told us that certainty in the mortgage market is critical to the emerging and continuing housing recovery. i think it is a matter of fairness to that many institutions have taken this seriously and gotten themselves into position. the final thing i say is there are other things building onto the qm regime. the longer t

they expressed them when dodd frank was being considered. hard toorking very address the concerns around this rule.- this we didn't wear likely to be able to do so. -- we think that we are likely to be able to do so. we want to address the concerns that people have so that it won't be necessary to repeal the rule. that is my hope. they're certainly trying to do that. >> what is your timeframe on that? once you are confirmed? >> this is something we hope to get out hopefully later this year. >> you said you could do that without changing the section in question? >> i believe that is the case. we will be able to address those concerns. i understand the concerns. we are trying very hard. i've see share chairman bernanke's viewpoint? >> i believe so about those concerns that are there. we need to address them. we need to do so and we will. qe,ince the start of the the financial markets have responded to pronouncements by the fed. are you concerned that the markets are too driven by speeches and pronouncements from central banks around the world?

this is dodd/frank.tually helps banks a lot. >> if they drop it, if you can borrow cheaply, whatever. this is dodd/frank. so many embedded costs into that regulatory structure, with capital requirements and everything else. by the way, the banks -- >> you say the reform we had since the end of the depression is actually prompting banks to hike fees? >> i can't wait to see adam deny this. the banks said this right at the start. we were going to stop free check. we're going to raise fees, we're going to -- >> they never said -- >> oh, no, they told reporters this all the time. >> i don't think it will happen. i don't think the federal reserve to charles' point is going to cut the interest rate paid on bank reserves. i don't think banks will do this. >> the banks need to get money from somewhere. >> they need to finance loans. number one. that is one of their biggest moneymakers. number two, you sell other services to people who have money on deposit so they can easily make up what they might lose. >> adam,

we've had dodd-frank. we've got this issue a numb of issues still related to that and other issues too. one particular thing i want to ask you about, the volcker rule this issue of financial institutions using their own money, proprietary trading. i think you've said you want outlines from the regulate yorns this by the end of the year. >> i don't want outlines, i want the rule. >> what's your expectation now by the end of the year? is there clarity? >> i'm optimist exwe'll see a rule by the end of the year. i've met on a regular basis with regulators. five different agencies have to come to the same place. it's a complicated process. but it has to come to closure. it was an important part of dodd-frank. i think it's important in terms of financial regulatory policy. i think it's important in terms of confidence and government. these processes can't go on forever. if you look at the period of time from dodd-frank being enacted until now, there were a couple of years where every effort to delay the implemen

and they did -- worked on the dodd frank regulation.nd they managed the capital markets stabilization programs extraordinarily well. but i believe that when president obama picked him as his treasury secretary i think that was a big step toward sticking with the capital market stabilization programs that i think there was a real continuity. across the board. as i said, the stress tests were a logical extension of the capital program, that 75% of the t.a.r.p. dollars were already committed. 95% of the programs were already in place. again, president bush was able to -- i just don't think he begins to get enough credit for his view. for the better part of a year i brought him bad news after bad news and he never once said look at the bulls. can you imagine how much he must have liked -- and i'm being facetious here. making the auto loans. or bailing out bankamerica, you know, on the night before he was -- the day he gave his farewell address to the nation we were putting capital in bankamerica. and a lot of his political advisers were say

what that means, dodd-frank gives you the ability to wind down the emergency lending authority.en established as far as i know internal timelines to do that. so one obvious question related to this study coming out today -- will you do that as chairman? and when will you do it? >> well, senator, i think that that guidance is in the works, and we will try to get it out soon. >> do you have a general timeframe in mind? >> i'm not certain just what the timeframe is, but i will -- i will try to make sure that that happens. >> if i could just ask you to supplement the record following the hearing with more specifics about the fed's plan to act on dodd-frank with regard to that. thank you. >> you also mention increased leverage ratios for the biggest banks. i agree that the action you supported in july in terms of supplementary leverage ratio for larger banks was very positive. i do not agree that it's enough, and i think even when you consider the sifi surcharge and other things, more needs to be done. would you support going further in terms of leveraged ratios for the largest banks

because the mortgage market interestly when dodd-frank was written. and it was responding to a crisis, you know, in the economy that was caught by an overheated mortgage market that became pathological in various respects and a lot of very almost crazily irresponsible practices that have become, you know, very widespread. by the time we came to write the rules to implement dodd-frank we're now looking at a mortgage market that could hardly be more different. it's a market with credit that is real cri tying. this is what happened when you have a boom and a bust and a crash. mortgage lending was pulled back significantly and what we learned from getting an exceptionally broad range of input is that access to credit is a very significant problem that we're going to have to pay attention to here. it isn't just adding new consumer protections if credit is going to shrink even more. that is currently one of the big problems in the mortgage in helping markets. so that was notable to us. and i think it will inform our approach to all rules. as i said we can w

could this affect the enforcement of dodd-frank? >> yeah.no, i mean, certainly the derivatives regulation, and i would expect the capital levels. there's no -- >> how? how would that work? >> the first language in both these deals goes something along the lines with, "all signatories are required to make their laws and regulations conform to the standards of this agreement." they are literally required to make their nation-based laws subordinate to the terms of these agreements. and, again, we don't know exactly what's in them. but the whole notion is that they are to permit very liberalized capital flows and minimal restrictions. so dodd-frank basically is inconsistent with that. >> so foreign trade partners would conceivably be allowed to challenge american laws? >> yeah. >> that's exactly the point. >> that's the point. you know, one of the things it extends is a concept that exists in nafta, which is that you have special panels that companies can go to to get matters adjudicated if they believe that regulations have led them to lose pro

we have received now 15 million words under dodd-frank. that represents 22 volumes of war and peace which would be about this site if they placed on this table. we are only 39% of the way through dodd-frank. we've got another 20 million words to come. this type of access is driven in large part by an attitude which essentially says to folks, listen, we the regulators know better how to deal with your life than you do. we want to take risks out of her life. you should not risk in your life. we are basically going to be in charge of your life through regulations. it's a bureaucratic access in many ways. there is no question that an appropriate regulation is needed in a market economy. but that at some point, if you go too far, you end up constraining that economy because the energy, instead of going to create an economic activity, goes to respond to basically the issues raised by the regulators. area -- the third area, again, at its core our folks who generally don't believe in market economies, free market economies especially. it's a belie

. >> now, you had to fight tooth and nail for dodd-frank, your landmark reform law. but we still see the gop continue to fight against consumers. >> well, they're trying to slow the act down. something very important happened the other day. the regulations that are done under the legislature that we passed can be challenged and they go before the district of columbia court. they get all the regulation that some bank or hedge fund doesn't like. the judges on that court are, unfortunately, in a conservative majority. now, there are three vacancies. president obama is trying to fill those vacancies, not create any new judges, not packing the court. he just wants to appoint his share of judges who we wouldn't have a conservative bias on the court. and the republicans are filibustering it. people should understand why. it's to protect financial institutions. because until president obama can get his people confirmed, there will be a majority there that will strike down regulations unfairly. and just one more minute, i'm going to give you one quick example. the commodity f

the way congress passed dodd- frank -- title 14 of the law would have taken effect of its own accord at the beginning of january 2013. 10 months ago now. it would've had a new framework. it is not as though our qm rule has altered the status quo and without it the status will would have continued to operate as it was. change was coming. it was embedded in the statute. fact that we wrote that rule delayed the implementation of the changes in the market by one year. we have given industry an extra year beyond the two years to begin to get ready for this. the vast majority of institutions are ready. it is important that we continue to move ahead. certainty in the mortgage market is critical to the emerging and continuing housing recovery. many institutions have taken this seriously and gotten themselves into position. there are other things building onto the qm regime. the longer that is delayed, the longer it delays further steps, such as gse reform, being able to build on a platform of knowing where we are. we just received that letter. we will look carefully at it as we do with all i

. -- dodd frank law. this is 45 minutes. gentlemen, please welcome politico's chief economic correspondent, ben white. [applause] >> i am the chief economic reporter for politico. author of the morning money column. on my note, it says it is a must read for anyone who cares about wall street. i do not know if it is a must read, but we hope you read. we are honored to have the director of the consumer financial protection bureau. a few housekeeping notes. if you have cell phones, we would be happy to have you tweet the event. just turn them on vibrate. i have a tab to get twitter questions if you have those for me. i would like to thank the foundation for their partnership. we are appreciative of their efforts. here to say a few words is michael peterson, the president and chief operating officer. [applause] >> good morning. welcome today. the nonpartisan mission is to increase awareness and accelerate action on america's long-term fiscal challenges. we just made it through a government shutdown. we just have a couple months

i'm thinking the president can't be this inept, these guys screwed up the stimulus package, dodd-frank is a mess, but it makes you think they designed it to fail so they could literally socialize medicine, and that this thing they know this thing is never going to work. i don't know how, you know, i'm not an expert at this but even experts that know a lot about it can't get their hands around it. there's a lot of it that doesn't make any sense particularly the way they rolled it out. >> we can argue the particulars how it was launched but ben stein the issue comes to the cost of fixing it and whether it will be akin to what we had to do after housing. what do you think? >> well the big difference is the government got back a lot of the money that it invested in the banks and in the insurers after the bailout. the government is not going to get any of this money back. of course it's going to cost way, way, way more than it was estimated. of course it's going to cost the government more and of course it's going to cost the insurers more and of course the insurers will mobilize their army

out on housing, criticizing former colleagues from way from tougher mortgage roles required under dodd/frank. are you concerned we're seeing lax lending standards and on the road to a bubble again? >> we're positive here with this enforcement action but i think in rule-making we're seeing definitely backtracking. we had a problem with private securitization and the problem is we separated origination of the loan from ownership of the loan and the risk it would default later on. that gave us volume-driven business. so forcing securitizers, those packages mortgages and selling them off as securities forcing them to keep some skin in the game was a key central reform of dodd/frank. it's been proposed as eviscerates that and i think it's highly problematic. there's a lot of political pressure on regulators to back down on risk retention. everyone wants to get the housing market again. they think that's part of the solution to our economic problems but wet want a sustainable housing market. we don't want to recreate the party we had prior to 2008. so, i'm very concerned about it. i hope they'll t

what that means is dodd frank if wind downility to that emergency lending authority.

the dodd-frank act was passed and signed into law july of 2010. at that point the framework here was cast in stone. in fact, the way congress passed dodd-frank, title xiv of the law would have taken effect of its own accord at the beginning of january 2013. so ten months ago now. and it would have had a new framework. it's not as hoe our qm -- as though our qm rule has altered the status quo. change was coming. it was embedded in the statute. the fact that we wrote that rule actually delayed the implementation of the changes in the mortgage market by a year. we've given industry an extra year beyond the two and a half years they already had at that time to begin to get ready for this. so the vast majority of institutions are ready. it's important, i think, that we continue to move ahead. much of industry has told us that certainty in the mortgage market is critical to the emerging and continuing growing housing recovery. and i think it's a matter of fairness, too, to the many institutions that have taken it seriously, gotten themselves in position

it's not like something the dodd-frank gave them that they didn't have to prevent the crisis. including dealing with it after the fact in 2008. but they have the authority back then and they didn't use the. >> how we made it too hard in 2013? >> we got on the squared circle in which small business people would come to the white house and say that we can't do credit and then the base would say, the banks have tightened the standards and some of them them are less credit worthy, but they don't want any credit and we kind of went back and forth on that and then they both agreed that let's just blame it on the regulators greater than you talk to them and they say that we haven't applied any different standard to the banks. so i think it's very hard to say. it feels to me like at least 75% of the tightness of credit has nothing to do with government regulation. it has to do with everybody that just came through such a horrible period that they pulled in their lines of credit and are emphatically not going to land at the kind of where they were before. some comes from regulatory, bu

the dodd-frank -- it is a curious observation. the way congress passed dodd- frank -- title 14 of the law would have taken effect of its own accord at the beginning of january 2013. 10 months ago now. it would've had a new framework. rule not as though our qm has altered the status quo and without it the status will would have continued to operate as it was. change was coming. it was embedded in the statute. fact that we wrote that rule delay the implementation of the changes in the market by one year. we have given the street an extra year beyond the two years to begin to get ready for this. the vast majority of -- it is important that we continue to move ahead. certainty in the mortgage market to the emerging and continuing housing recovery. any institutions have taken this seriously and gotten themselves into position. there are other things building onto the qm regime. the longer that is delayed, the longer it delays further steps, reform, being able to build on a platform of knowing where we are. we just received that letter.

this is a ceo who has criticized the dodd/frank financial law. >> that's an interesting point, mary, the fact is, this is the banker who runs jpmorgan chase, who has been very critical of the obama administration. >> yes, jamie dimon is one of the big ceos who have come out and spoken against them. the question is, where is this money going? $2 billion is going to the justice department to do with it what it likes. $7 billion to federal and state agencies. and $4 billion to consumers. now, are these consumers who were truly harmed? are these people who were paying their mortgages and foreclosed on? some very prom nent attorney generals who have political aspirations. the new york attorney general. illinois attorney general. they're all getting payouts too. that's going to help their political careers. >> the question is whether a lot of money goes to these groups like acorn. we all remember acorn which of course doesn't exist anymore but the people are still around and they've forked other organizations and maybe they're going to get a piece of this pie. >> undoubtedly, they will. on

i think that we, a lot of people were thinking we need to do something with like dodd-frank after the financial collapse. that doesn't seem to have hurt any of the banks we thought we, the stocks are soaring, dow above 16,000. there were additional regulations put. in it doesn't seem to have harmed anybody. >> on the or hand, rich, it proves the "hunger games" point. that there is an elite, insider elite. they are doing great. like gangbusters. the rest of us are just supporting that elite. >> i agree with john. john i would add crony capitalism. this administration in particular makes no secret of the fact that it favors certain kinds of industries. certain kinds of financial institutions. and even else is on the outside. the majority of us are on the outside. >> sabrina, i'm pleased that john is optimistic about the future. he says eventually when the capital becomes too big, maybe not quite as big as in the "hunger games" but eventually americans wake up and change things. do you think they will do hit the time? >> absolutely. since this is the weekend of thanksgiving, i want to be

the agency says its because new rules under dodd frank make it less likely the banks will fail and the government will swoop in with a bailout. moody's lowered debt ratings by a notch to jp mrgan chase, goldman sachs, morgan stanley, and bank of new york mellon. moody's confirmed ratings for citigroup, bank of america, state street and wells fargo. moodys says all 8 banks are rated as investment grade and have a stable outlook. president obama is calling on his supporters today. following a rocky start to the massive insurance overhaul, the president said he'll hold a conference call with supporters today to discuss immigration reform, healthcare and more. meanwhile, both sides of the aisle are looking for a fix in light of the recent changes to obamacare. friday, the president met with insurance executives to brainstorm ways to fix the current situation. the president met with insurance executives to brainstorm ways to improve the current situation. " because of choice and competition, a whole lot of americans who've always seen health insurance out of reach are going to be in a posit

during previous hearings i asked chairman bernanke what parts of dodd-frank could be revisited. chairman bernanke also commented in july that legislation is needed to allow the fed flexibility to deal with the collins amendment and tailor appropriate capital requirements for insurance companies. i look forward to hearing dr. yellin's views on what dodd- frank fixes congress ought to consider and how she intends to achieve an appropriate balance between the regulation and economic growth in confirmed. in addition to the previously mentioned issues, the makeup of the board itself will change in the near future. governor sarah bloom raskin nominated. if governor yellin is confirmed as chair, the fed will need a new vice chair. moreover, dodd-frank created a vice chair of supervision which has not yet been officially filled. the appointments will shape the direction of the federal reserve policy making for years to come. i look forward to working with the chairman to see that the positions are filled in a way that provides the proper balance and expertise at the fed. thank you, mr.

we can get that that but this is the ceo who's criticized the dodd frank financial law. >> that's anteresting point, mary. the fact is that that is one of the banker who runs jpmorgan chase, jamie dimon has been critical and political persecution here. >> jamie is one of the few big ceos that's come out and spoken out against what happened with fannie and freddie and government regulation. and as james says, you know, where does this money go? >> that's a good question. where is it going. >> $2 billion is going to the justice department to do with what it likes and 7 billion to federal and state agencies and $4 billion to consumers. now, david, are these consumers who were truly harmed? are these people who were paying their mortgages and foreclosed on? it's very unclear. what i do know is that some very prominent attorney generals who have political aspiration, new york state attorney general and california's attorney general c are getting payouts too that will help their careers. >> a lot of money goes to their groups like a.c.o.r.n. we all remember a.c.o.r.n. which doesn't exist b