From Reuters:

Between now and mid-April, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd and top committee Republican Senator Richard Shelby will try again to find compromise on reform.

The two failed to cut a deal last year after months of discussions. Dodd gave it another shot with Republican Senator Bob Corker in January and February, but they failed, as well.

With that disappointing record as a backdrop, and some stubborn disputes remaining on fundamental points of policy, the odds would not seem to favor a Dodd-Shelby agreement.

But the political ground is shifting under the Republicans and Shelby habitually waits until the last minute to close a deal. At the same time, Dodd is retiring at the end of the year and is highly motivated to produce a bill that will help define his legacy. So a bipartisan pact could yet emerge.

If a deal can be cut, putting Shelby’s considerable clout behind a revised bill, financial reform legislation would likely win Senate approval. That could happen by May.

The next step would be to merge the Senate bill with one approved in December by the House of Representatives. If that happened promptly, President Barack Obama could have a final bill on his desk to sign into law by June or July.

That’s how Politico describes the fate of financial reform in the Senate.  From the story:

It took only 21 minutes for Democrats to approve a 1,336-page financial reform bill Monday, in a committee vote that drew zero Republican support.

It’s going to take quite a while longer for the bill’s next step to become clear.

Democrats are hoping to turn to financial reregulation as their next major agenda item once they wrap up health care reform. But despite the financial reform bill’s progress out of committee Monday night, just how Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd gains the Republican support he needs — without losing his left flank — remains as murky as ever.

Both sides said they still hope to hammer out a bipartisan bill before the legislation comes to a floor vote. And Democrats need those talks to yield results, since they are one vote shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

A bunch of anti-business groups met in California to have a one-sided discussion about payday loans. They concluded that everyone that attended is virtuous, noble and kind to animals.  From the story:

The meeting itself was a valuable, responsible discussion because it addressed the root causes and all the different forces at work in this issue. Emmet Carson of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation ended the gathering: “Remember: It’s not the things you don’t know that get you into trouble- it’s the things you know for sure that are not so.”

It would have been even more valuable if they had someone from the payday lending industry there.  Or how about one of our satisfied customers?

Now even credit unions and community banks are being criticized for exercising their constitutional rights.   I’m beginning to dislike the media.   From the story:

Because they are smaller, credit unions and community banks have managed to escape the scrutiny aimed at their Wall Street brethren. But, size isn’t everything.

Credit unions and community banks are part of the same financial industry that spent millions of dollars lobbying against measures that would have beefed up consumer protection rights. They were also hit hard by the recession and had to take bailout money from the government. The difference, advocates of Move Your Money campaign said, is that they didn’t create the nation’s financial meltdown.

Well the payday lending industry didn’t cause the recession OR take bailout money.

From the story:

The clients who descend into Nadezhda Sedova’s basement pawnshop often unload their problems along with their valuables. Some are struggling to pay for medicines, others are living paycheque-to-paycheque, still others need a cash injection for a much-needed holiday.

“I hear stories about their families and their grandchildren,” Ms Sedova said through the small window in the protective booth where she sits. “Sometimes it’s easier for them to talk about their problems with strangers than with friends or families.”
The economic crisis has hit Russia hard, with rising unemployment and large swathes of the economy in decline. But for pawnshops such as the one Ms Sedova manages near a busy metro station in northern Moscow, business is brisk. With fewer available bank loans and a significant rise in the price of gold recently, increasing numbers of Russians are turning to pawnshops to make ends meet.

They have no quit in them.   Stop the CFPA ads are still going strong.

Financial regulatory reform is the next item on the site’s agenda.   From the latest column:

Americans associate securities regulation with a well known Federal agency called the “Securities and Exchange Commission.” Heard if it? But what if I told you that the first Federal law regulating securities predated the SEC? It’s true. The first Federal securities law was the “Securities Act of 1933″ (commonly called the “’33 Act”). The SEC, however, did not come into existence until 1934. It was established up by the aptly named “Securities Exchange Act of 1934″ (The “’34 Act”). Yep, it’s right there in Section 4 of the ’34 Act: “There is hereby established a Securities and Exchange Commission. . .” Both laws, of course, were part of the raft of early New Deal legislation championed by none-other-than President Franklin Roosevelt.

I was wondering when Roosevelt would get dragged into this.  Today’s the day.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.   From the story:

A U.S. senator who had been working with U.S. Sen. Bob Corker to develop regulations for the nation’s financial industry is denying published reports that Corker sought to exclude payday lenders from the rules.

They don’t want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau any more than we do.  From the story:

“How many tantrums do you want me to throw?” asked Richard Herrington, the chairman and CEO of locally based Franklin Synergy Bank, frustrated with the idea of creating such an agency. “The banking industry has done a good job presenting its case, but it hasn’t worked,” he said.He and other bankers fear the consumer bureau would make new rules that undermine the health of banks — without having to go through Congress or hold extensive hearings that have been typical of other regulators.

Sound familiar?

I took this headline as a pop quiz.