ドッド=フランク・ウォール街改革・消費者保護法 (Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)
正式題名
金融システムにおける説明責任および透明性を改善することにより合衆国の金融安定を推進するための、「大き過ぎてつぶせない」を終わらせるための、ベイル・アウトを終わらせることによりアメリカの納税者を保護するための、濫用的金融サービス実務から消費者を保護するための、ならびにその他の目的のための法律 (an Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.)
通称
ドッド=フランク法(Dodd–Frank) ウォール街改革法(Wall Street Reform) 金融規制改革法(Financial Regulatory Reform)
2010年6月29日に合同協議委員会により報告。 2010年6月30日に下院にてドッド=フランク・ウォール街改革・消費者保護法(Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)として(237–192) 2010年7月15日に上院にて承認。(60–39)
ドッド=フランク・ウォール街改革・消費者保護法(ドッド=フランク・ウォールがいかいかく・しょうひしゃほごほう;Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)(Pub.L.111–203, H.R. 4173)は、アメリカ合衆国の連邦法律で、2010年7月21日にバラク・オバマ大統領により署名され成立した[1]。2000年代後期の大不況を受けて制定されたもので、米国の金融規制に対して、大恐慌後の規制改革以来の最も重要な変化をもたらした[2][3][4]。米国の金融規制環境にもたらした変化は、全ての連邦金融規制当局およびほぼ全ての国内金融産業に対して影響を与えた[5][6]。
ニューヨーク・タイムズは、調整前の両院の法律案の比較を公表した[29]。2010年6月25日、協議委員会は両院の法律案の調整を完了し、4日後に協議報告書を提出した[1][30]。協議委員会はこの法律の名を「2010年アメリカ金融安定復活法」(Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010)から変更した。2010年6月30日には下院が協議報告書を237対192で可決し[31]、7月15日には上院が60対39で可決した[32][33]。この法律案は、2010年7月21日にオバマ大統領によって署名され、法律として成立した[34]。
FSOCと同様に、金融調査局は、米国の省庁に対して、「同局が適当であると判断する、役務、資金、施設、人員、およびその他の支援活動」を求めることができる。連邦政府の職員はFSOCへの派遣されることがあるが、かかる派遣は公務員のとしての身分・特権の支障または喪失を伴うものではない[59]。財務省内には「金融調査資金」(Financial Research Fund)という回転資金があり、そこに同局の受領した割当予算、手数料および賦課金の全てが預け入れられる。予定では、設置から2年以内に、同局はその資金のみによって賄うことが可能となる[60]。
金 融安定監督評議会において代表される金融規制機関の各々は、マイノリティ・女性参加室(Office of Minority and Women Inclusion)を設置しなければならない。同室は、管理、雇用および事業活動におけるダイバーシティに関わる当該機関のあらゆる事項について責任を 負う[99]。
E節:技術的・形式的改正
さまざまな法律について所要の技術的ないし形式的な改正がなされた。
第IV編:ヘッジ・ファンド等に対する助言業者の規制
第IV編、すなわち、「2010年プライベート・ファンド投資助言登録法」(Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010)[100] は、ヘッジ・ファンドなどの投資仲介業者に対して初めて重要な規制を導入した。
一般に、この編によって、投資助言業者の報告義務が加重され、投資助言業者がさまざまな連邦政府機関に対する報告において情報を除外する能力も制限された。しかしながら、いくつかの例外は認められている。すなわち、ベンチャー・キャピタル・ファンド助言業者[101]、運用資産が1.5億ドル未満の一定の助言業者[102] およびファミリー・オフィス(証券取引委員会により定義される。)[103] である。この法律は、認定投資家の定義を変更し、自身でまたは配偶者と併せて4年以上にわたって平均100億ドル超の純資産を有する者との定義について、その者の住居を計算対象から除外した[104]。また、証券取引委員会(SEC)は、時期に応じてこの金額を調整することができる。また、SECは、5年ごとにインフレ効果を反映して調整しなければならないが、この金額は10万ドルの倍数でなければならない[105]。
第 VI編、すなわち、「2010年銀行・貯蓄組合持株会社・預金機関規制改善法」(Bank and Savings Association Holding Company and Depository Institution Regulatory Improvements Act of 2010)[118] は、いわゆるボルカー・ルールの導入のために1956年銀行持株会社法を改正するものである。「ボルカー・ルール」の名は、前連邦準備制度理事会議長ポール・ボルカーに由来する。大企業のバランス・シートに対する投機的投資の額を減少させるため、銀行組織(banking entity)は、そのTier1資本総額の3%を超えてヘッジ・ファンドまたはプライベート・エクイティ・ファンドの持分を保有することが禁止された[119]。さらに、ヘッジ・ファンドまたはプライベート・エクイティ・ファンドと直接的または間接的な関係を有する銀行は、「当該ファンドまたはその他のヘッジ・ ファンドもしくはプライベート・エクイティ・ファンドであって当該ファンドにより支配されているものと取引をする」ためには、当該関係の全てを規制当局に 開示し、利益相反がないことを保証しなければならない[120]。銀行組織(banking entity)には、付保預金機関、付保預金機関を支配する会社およびかかる会社の関連会社または子会社が含まれ、これらは、本編による規定を制定後2年以内(延長申請可)に遵守しなければならない。
第XII編、すなわち「2010年主流金融機関アクセス改善法」(Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010)[221] は、低・中所得者の金融システムへの参加を促すインセンティブを規定する。このインセンティブを提供する資格のある組織は、(A) 1986年内国歳入法典501条(c)(3)に規定された組織であって同法501条(a)に基づいて非課税とされるもの、(B)連邦付保預金機関、(C)地域開発金融機関、(D)州、地方もしくは部族の政府組織、または(E)(A)から(D)までのいずれか1もしくは複数から構成されるパートナーシップその他のジョイント・ベンチャーである[222]。複数年にわたる給付プログラムや協同契約などによって、以下のことが推進される[223]。
低・中所得の個人による連邦付保預金機関への口座開設
典型的には2,500ドル未満の少額貸付
金融に関する教育・相談の提供
第XIII編:ペイ・イット・バック法
第XIII編、すなわち「ペイ・イット・バック法」(Pay It Back Act)[224] は、2008年緊急経済安定化法を改正し、不良資産救済プログラムを制限して利用可能な資金を7000億ドルから4750億ドルに減額し、さらに、未使用資金を新たなプログラムのために使用することはできないものとした[225]。
Subtitle E concerns rules concerning escrow and settlement procedures for people who are in trouble repaying their mortgages, and also makes amendments to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974. In general, in connection with a residential mortgage there should be established an escrow or impound account for the payment of taxes, hazard insurance, and (if applicable) flood insurance, mortgage insurance, ground rents, and any other required periodic payments. Lender shall disclose to borrower at least three business days before closing the specifics of the amount required to be in the escrow account and the subsequent uses of the funds.[255] If an escrow, impound, or trust account is not established, or the consumer chooses to close the account, the servicer shall provide a timely and clearly written disclosure to the consumer that advises the consumer of the responsibilities of the consumer and implications for the consumer in the absence of any such account.[256] The amendments to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (or RESPA) change how a Mortgage servicer (those who administer loans held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.) should interact with consumers.[257]
F節:鑑定事業
A creditor may not extend credit for a higher-risk mortgage to a consumer without first obtaining a written appraisal of the property with the following components:[258]
Physical Property Visit – including a visit of the interior of the property
Second Appraisal Circumstances – creditor must obtain a second appraisal, with no cost to the applicant, if the original appraisal is over 180 days old or if the current acquisition price is lower than the previous sale price
A "certified or licensed appraiser" is defined as someone who:
is certified or licensed by the state in which the property is located
The use of Automated Valuation Models to be used to estimate collateral value for mortgage lending purposes.[259]
Automated valuation models shall adhere to quality control standards designed to,
ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by automated valuation models;
protect against the manipulation of data;
seek to avoid conflicts of interest;
require random sample testing and reviews; and
account for any other such factor that those responsible for formulating regulations deem appropriate
The Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the National Credit Union Administration Board, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, in consultation with the staff of the Appraisal Subcommittee and the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation, shall promulgate regulations to implement the quality control standards required under this section that devises Automated Valuation Models.
Residential and 1-to-4 unit single family residential real estate are enforced by: Federal Trade Commission, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and a state attorney general. Commercial enforcement is by the Financial regulatory agency that supervised the financial institution originating the loan.
Broker Price Opinions may not be used as the primary basis to determine the value of a consumer's principal dwelling; but valuation generated by an automated valuation model is not considered a Broker Price Opinion.
The standard settlement form (commonly known as the HUD 1) may include, in the case of an appraisal coordinated by an appraisal management company, a clear disclosure of:[260]
the fee paid directly to the appraiser by such company
the administration fee charged by such company
Within one year, the Government Accountability Office shall conduct a study on the effectiveness and impact of various appraisal methods, valuation models and distribution channels, and on the home valuation code of conduct and the appraisal subcommittee.[261]
G節:抵当貸付の処理・変更
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is charged with developing a program to ensure protection of current and future tenants and at-risk multifamily (5 or more units) properties. The Secretary may coordinate the program development with the Secretary of the Treasury, the FDIC, the Fed, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and any other federal government agency deemed appropriate. The criteria may include:[262]
creating sustainable financing of such properties, that may take into consideration such factors as:
the rental income generated by such properties
the preservation of adequate operating reserves
maintaining the current level of federal, state, and city subsidies
funds for rehabilitation
facilitating the transfer of such properties, when appropriate and with the agreement of owners
Previously the Treasury Department has created the Home Affordable Modification Program, set up to help eligible home owners with loan modifications on their home mortgage debt. This section requires every mortgage servicer participating in the program and denies a re-modification request to provide the borrower with any data used in a net present value (NPV) analysis. The Secretary of the Treasury is also directed to establish a Web-based site that explains NPV calculations.[263]
The secretary of the Treasury is instructed to develop a Web-based site to explain the Home Affordable Modification Program and associated programs, that also provides an evaluation of the impact of the program on home loan modifications.[264]
H節:雑則
It is the sense of the Congress that significant structural reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required[265]
GAO is commissioned to study current inter-agency efforts to reduce mortgage foreclosure and rescue scams and loan modification fraud.[266]
HUD is commissioned to study the impact of defective drywall imported from China from 2004 through 2007 and their effect on foreclosures.[267]
Additional funding for Mortgage Relief and Neighborhood Stabilization programs ($1 billion each)[268]
HUD to establish legal assistance for foreclosure-related issues with $35 million authorized for fiscal years 2011 through 2012.[269]
第XV編:雑則
The following sections have been added to the Act:
外国政府のための米国の資金の使用の制限;アメリカの納税者の保護
The US Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund is instructed to evaluate any loan to a country if
The amount of the public debt of the country exceeds the annual gross domestic product of the country
The SEC is mandated to create rules that address potential conflict materials (e.g. blood diamonds) and to assess whether materials originating in or near the Democratic Republic of the Congo are benefiting armed groups in the area.[271]
The United Nations Security Council committee charged with overseeing conflict minerals issues reported that this legislation was a "catalyst" for efforts to save lives by cutting off a key source of funding for armed groups.[274]
炭鉱その他の鉱山の安全性の報告
Requires the SEC to report on mine safety by gathering information on violations of health or safety standards, citations and orders issued to mine operators, number of flagrant violations, value of fines, number of mining-related fatalities, etc., to determine whether there is a pattern of violations.[275]
資源抽出を行う発行者による支払の開示
The 1934年証券取引所法 is amended to require disclosure of payments relating to the acquisition of licenses for exploration, production, etc., where "payment" includes fees, production entitlements, bonuses, and other material benefits.[276] The act states in SEC. 1504 (3) that these documents will be made available online to the public.[276]
会計検査官による検討
The Comptroller General is commissioned to assess the relative independence, effectiveness, and expertise of presidentially appointed inspectors general and inspectors general of federal entities.[277]
基礎的預金およびブローカー預金の検討
The FDIC is instructed to conduct a study to evaluate:[278]
the definition of core deposits for the purpose of calculating the insurance premiums of banks;
an assessment of the differences between core deposits and brokered deposits and their role in the economy and banking sector
the potential stimulative effect on local economies of redefining core deposits; and
the competitive parity between large institutions and community banks that could result from redefining core deposits.
第XVI編:1256条契約
A Section 1256 Contract refers to a section of the IRC§ 1256 that described tax treatment for any regulated futures contract, foreign currency contract or non-equity option. To calculate capital gains or losses, these trades have traditionally been marked to market on the last business day of the year. A "section 1256 contract" shall not include:[279]
any securities futures contract or option on such a contract unless such contract or option is a dealer securities futures contract
swap form of a derivative, such as interest rate swaps, currency swaps, etc.
影響と反応
議会の反応
Senator Chris Dodd, who co-proposed the legislation, has classified the legislation as "sweeping, bold, comprehensive, [and] long overdue". In regards to the Fed and what he regarded as their failure to protect consumers, Dodd voiced his opinion that "[…] I really want the Federal Reserve to get back to its core enterprises […] We saw over the last number of years when they took on consumer protection responsibilities and the regulation of bank holding companies, it was an abysmal failure. So the idea that we're going to go back and expand those roles and functions at the expense of the vitality of the core functions that they're designed to perform is going in the wrong way." However, Dodd pointed out that the transfer of powers from the Fed to other agencies should not be construed as criticism of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, but rather that "[i]t's about putting together an architecture that works."[280]
With regards to the lack of bipartisan input on the legislation, Dodd alleged that had he put together a "[…] bipartisan compromise, I think you make a huge mistake by doing that. You're given very few moments in history to make this kind of a difference, and we're trying to do that." Put another way, Dodd construed the lack of Republican amendments as a sign "[…] that the bill is a strong one."[280][281]
Richard Shelby, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and the one who proposed the changes to the Fed governance, voiced his reasons for why he felt the changes needed to be made: "It's an obvious conflict of interest […] It's basically a case where the banks are choosing or having a big voice in choosing their regulator. It's unheard of." Democratic Senator Jack Reed agreed, saying "The whole governance and operation of the Federal Reserve has to be reviewed and should be reviewed. I don't think we can just assume, you know, business as usual."[282]
Barney Frank, who has proposed his own legislative package of financial reforms in the House, did not comment on the Stability Act directly, but rather indicated that he was pleased that reform efforts were happening at all – "Obviously the bills aren't going to be identical, but it confirms that we are moving in the same direction and reaffirms my confidence that we are going to be able to get an appropriate, effective reform package passed very soon."[281]
During a Senate Republican press conference on April 21, 2010, Richard Shelby reported that he and Dodd were meeting "every day", and were attempting to forge a bipartisan bill. Shelby also expressed his optimism that a "good bill" will be reached, and that "we're closer than ever." Saxby Chambliss echoed Shelby's sentiments, saying "I feel exactly as Senator Shelby does about the Banking Committee negotiations.", but voiced his concern about maintaining an active derivatives market and not drive financial firms overseas. Kay Bailey Hutchison indicated her desire to see state banks have access to the Fed, while Orrin Hatch had concerns over transparency, and the lack of Fannie and Freddy reform.[283]
産業界等
Ed Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, regarded the reforms as haphazard and dangerous, saying "To some degree, it looks like they're just blowing up everything for the sake of change […] [i]f this were to happen, the regulatory system would be in chaos for years. You have to look at the real-world impact of this."[281]
Some experts have argued that the Dodd–Frank Act isn’t strong enough, arguing that it fails to protect consumers adequately, and, more importantly, does not end too big to fail.[284]
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) — the "top Wall Street lobby" — has expressed support for the law, and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it in order to prevent a stronger law from passing.[285]
Law professor and bankruptcy expert David Skeel concluded that the law has two major themes which are "government partnership with the largest Wall Street banks and financial institutions" and "a system of ad hoc interventions by regulators that are divorced from basic rule-of-law constraints". While he states that "the overall pattern of the legislation is disturbing", he also concludes that some are clearly helpful, such as the derivatives exchanges and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[286]
Continental European scholars have also discussed the necessity of far-reaching banking reforms in light of the current crisis of confidence, recommending the adoption of bindingregulations that would go further than the Dodd–Frank Act—notably in France where SFAF and World Pensions Council (WPC) banking experts have argued that, beyond national legislations, such rules should be adopted and implemented within the broader context of separation of powers in European Union law.[287][288] This perspective has gained ground after the unraveling of the Libor scandal in July 2012, with mainstream opinion leaders such as the フィナンシャル・タイムズ editorialists calling for the adoption of an EU-wide "Glass Steagall II"[289]
議会予算局
On April 21, 2010, the 議会予算局(CBO) released a cost-estimate of enacting the legislation. In its introduction, the CBO briefly discussed the legislation and then went on to generally state that it is unable to assess the cost of financial crises under current law, and added that estimating the cost of similar crises under this legislation (or other proposed ideas) is equally (and inherently) difficult: "[…] CBO has not determined whether the estimated costs under the Act would be smaller or larger than the costs of alternative approaches to addressing future financial crises and the risks they pose to the economy as a whole."[290]
In terms of the impact on the federal budget, the CBO estimates that deficits would reduce between 2011–2020, but largely in part due to the risk-based assessment fees levied to initially capitalize the Orderly Liquidation Fund; after which, the majority of revenue for the fund would be drawn primarily from interest payments. Due to this, the CBO projects that eventually the money being paid into the Fund (in the form of fees) would be exceeded by the expenses of the Fund itself. Additionally, the CBO points out that the reclassification of collected fees by various government agencies has the effect of boosting revenue.[290]
The cost estimate also raises questions about the time-frame of capitalizing the Fund – their estimate took the projected value of fees collected for the Fund (and interest collected on the Fund) weighed against the expected expense of having to deal with corporate default(s) until 2020. Their conclusion was it would take longer than 10 years to fully capitalize the Fund (at which point they estimated it would be approximately 45 billion), although no specifics beyond that were expressed.[290]
The projection was a $5 billion or more deficit increase in at least one of the ten-year periods starting in 2021.[290]
雇用創出
An editorial in ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル speculated that the law would make it more expensive for startups to raise capital and create new jobs;[291] other opinion pieces suggest that such an impact would be due to a reduction in fraud or other misconduct.[292] Complying with the statute seems to have resulted in job shifting or job creation in the business of fulfilling reporting requirements,[293] while making it more difficult to fire employees who report criminal violations.[294] Opponents of the Dodd-Frank Law believe that it will affect job creation, in a sense that because of stricter regulation unemployment will increase significantly. However, the Office of Management and Budget attempts to “monetize” benefits versus costs to prove the contrary. The result is a positive relationship where benefits exceed costs: “During a 10-year period OMB reviewed 106 major regulations for which cost and benefit data were available [...] $136 billion to $651 billion in annual benefits versus $44 billion to $62 billion in annual costs” (Shapiro and Irons, 2011, p. 8).[295]
無料当座預金口座への影響
Associated Press reported that in response to the costs that the legislation places on banks, some banks have ended the practice of giving their customers free checking.[296]
^H.R. 4173, § 1461; amending chapter 2 of the 貸付真実法 (合衆国法典第15編第1631条 15 U.S.C.§ 1631 et seq.): § 129D. Escrow or impound accounts relating to certain consumer credit transactions
^H.R. 4173, § 1462; amending section 129D of the 貸付真実法 (as added by section 1461) by adding: (j) DISCLOSURE NOTICE REQUIRED FOR CONSUMERS WHO WAIVE ESCROW SERVICES
^Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1533 (2004) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2011年6月11日). “Interim report of the Group of Experts on the DRC”. United Nations. 2012年1月26日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2011年7月11日閲覧。