Episode 757: Strong Feelings About Dodd-Frank

Mar 3, 2017

After the 2008 financial crisis, lawmakers decided they needed to do something about the banking industry. The government had bailed out big banks like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase, and wanted to prevent another crisis.

The response was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (aka Dodd-Frank), which was signed into law in 2010. In hundreds of pages, the law transformed the way finance is regulated in this country.

Now, President Donald Trump has made it clear he does not like Dodd-Frank and wants to make big changes.

So, we wanted to know, what are the important parts of Dodd-Frank? And what's going to happen to them?

We call everyone from bankers to Barney Frank to find out.

Music: "Take Me To The Dance," "Move Your Feet," and "Rapture." Find us: Twitter/ Facebook.

Subscribe to our show on iTunes or PocketCast.

Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.


So there was a financial crisis.


I remember this.

GOLDSTEIN: And then we argued for a while about what to do about it. And a few years after the financial crisis, Congress passed a great big law called Dodd-Frank that was supposed to transform the way the financial system is regulated.

VANEK SMITH: One thing our new president, Donald Trump, has made clear - he does not like Dodd-Frank.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, Dodd-Frank is a disaster. We're going to be doing a big number on Dodd-Frank.


TRUMP: We have to get rid of Dodd-Frank.


TRUMP: We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank.

GOLDSTEIN: So we have this great big law about financial reform. We have a president who says he is going to be doing a great big number on it. We are PLANET MONEY. Let's do a show about Dodd-Frank.

VANEK SMITH: Let's do it.

GOLDSTEIN: OK. So a thing about Dodd-Frank is, you know, we talk about it like it is this one thing, like it is this singular object. I'm for Dodd-Frank or I'm against Dodd-Frank. That is not the right way to think about it. Dodd-Frank is actually many, many different things, like, all these different rules about all these different parts of the financial system all kind of rolled into one. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to talk to a bunch of different people in all different parts of the financial system, of the country about these different pieces of Dodd-Frank. And we're going to ask, now that the Trump administration is here, what is going to happen to these different parts of the law. And I started kind of at the top. I started with Barney Frank, the former congressman whose name is on the bill.

Why is it Dodd-Frank instead of Frank-Dodd?

BARNEY FRANK: Oh, the - American history. The Senate name always comes first.

GOLDSTEIN: You ever think of it as Frank-Dodd?

FRANK: No, I don't think about - in fact, much of the time I refer to it as the financial reform bill.

GOLDSTEIN: Is there some part, some title of the law that is especially important to you? Do you have a favorite?

FRANK: No. I'm always puzzled when reporters ask me that, especially if they are people who have more than one child. And I wonder whether they have a particular child that they treasure over the others. I mean, in my experience, that's not the way we go about our lives. We...

GOLDSTEIN: Do you really love this law like a baby? I mean, that's what - are you really - is this like a baby?

FRANK: No, I didn't say that at all. And that's a conscious distortion on your part.


GOLDSTEIN: (Laughter) Yeah, I didn't see that coming.


GOLDSTEIN: And I thought we were just, like, talking about the law...


GOLDSTEIN: ...And how much he loved it. And then suddenly he seemed very angry.

VANEK SMITH: Suddenly stings like a bee.

GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. No, I mean, I talked to Barney Frank for a while and he helped me understand the law and think about what might happen. But he did not want to play along with the whole pick one part of the law, let's go deep on that. Fortunately, I talked to a lot of other people for the show, and those interviews went much better.

Hello, and welcome to PLANET MONEY. I'm Jacob Goldstein.

VANEK SMITH: And I'm Stacey Vanek Smith. Today on the show a small-town banker, a long-haired regulator, an economist, an activist and the smartest finance writer Jacob knows.

GOLDSTEIN: It's everything you need to know about Dodd-Frank in less than 30 minutes.


VANEK SMITH: So for this show we really wanted to get into the guts of Dodd-Frank. We wanted to...

GOLDSTEIN: Like an eagle will eat a good chicken, but for Dodd-Frank.

VANEK SMITH: Like an eagle eating, we wanted to tear the thing apart. So we called up some people who have a big stake in Dodd-Frank and asked them to talk to us about the part of the law that they care about the most. And we started with someone who has a pretty obvious stake in Dodd-Frank.

GOLDSTEIN: Oh, by the way, tell me your name. What's your name?

REBECA ROMERO RAINEY: My name is Rebeca Romero Rainey.

GOLDSTEIN: And what's your job?

RAINEY: I'm chairman and CEO of Centinel Bank.

GOLDSTEIN: She runs a bank. Obviously she cares about Dodd-Frank. She talked to me from her office in Taos, N.M.

RAINEY: If I look out the window of my office, I see the gorgeous Taos mountains. Excellent snow right now - great time to go skiing. Sun is shining. We have incredible vistas. I can see forever around here.

GOLDSTEIN: That's nice. That's a good sales pitch.

RAINEY: (Laughter) I play banker and Chamber of Commerce all the time.

GOLDSTEIN: Rainey's bank has $220 million in assets, which would be a lot of money to me, say, but for a bank it is tiny. The big national banks - you know, Citibank, Chase - they're, like, 10 times bigger than her bank or a hundred times bigger. They are thousands of times bigger than Rainey's bank.

VANEK SMITH: And a lot of the Dodd-Frank rules that apply to those giant trillion-dollar banks also apply to Rainey's bank. And Rainey and a lot of people who run small banks say that in a lot of cases, it just doesn't make any sense to use the same rules for such vastly different kinds of banks.

GOLDSTEIN: And this is true for a lot of rules in Dodd-Frank, especially the parts about mortgage lending, which is like, you know, bread and butter of small-town banking. And so I asked Rainey, just so I have a sense, just give me one example of these rules.

RAINEY: So what we're talking about is Title XIV of Dodd-Frank, which is the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, specifically Subtitle F, Appraisal Activities, and Section 1472 as it relates to appraisal independence requirements.

GOLDSTEIN: I had no idea any of that was there.

RAINEY: (Laughter) And that's just one section (laughter).

GOLDSTEIN: It's one subsection, subtitle - section - sub.

RAINEY: One thousand four hundred and seventy-two.

VANEK SMITH: Did you sit down and read Dodd-Frank, Jacob?

GOLDSTEIN: I bought it on the Kindle.

VANEK SMITH: (Laughter).

GOLDSTEIN: So, like, I sort of thumbed through it.

VANEK SMITH: How much did you pay?

GOLDSTEIN: Ninety-nine cents. So OK, an appraisal, right? She's talking about appraisals here, which is this thing you get when you're going to get a mortgage to buy a house. Somebody, an appraiser, has to figure out how much that house is worth. They have to appraise it.

VANEK SMITH: And during the housing bubble, some appraisers were pressured by banks to overstate the value of houses so that the banks could make inflated loans.

GOLDSTEIN: And then reasonably, Dodd-Frank tried to crack down on this.

VANEK SMITH: Section 1472.

GOLDSTEIN: Section 1472. There are lots of rules about appraisals in Dodd-Frank, including this one that says a bank cannot always rely on the same appraiser. They have to rotate through many different appraisers, keep them independent.

RAINEY: You know, you're in a large city, you've got a ton of appraisers to work with, not a problem. In rural markets, we're fortunate to have one or two. In a lot of other markets, there are no local appraisers anymore. And so it just - it's becoming more and more challenging to then be able to meet the requirements of the law.

GOLDSTEIN: And so how many appraisers do you have in Taos? How many appraisers are there in Taos?

RAINEY: So we work predominantly with two different appraisers.

GOLDSTEIN: And is that enough? Does it count as rotating if you have two?

RAINEY: Well, we're working through that to hopefully ensure that the regulators interpret that to be the case because that's all we have to work with.

GOLDSTEIN: And are you worried? Is either one of them, like, near retirement age?

RAINEY: I hope not.


RAINEY: They're going to work forever (laughter).

GOLDSTEIN: And so this one little rule that she's worried about is, you know, part of this whole stack of new rules that Rebeca Romero Rainey has to follow every time she makes a mortgage. You know, rules that say which bank employees can do which task, rules that require new kinds of paperwork for the bank.

VANEK SMITH: And, you know, there is a way in which more complicated rules actually favor big banks over small banks because a big bank already has a centralized compliance office, hundreds of people whose whole job it is to deal with complex regulations.

GOLDSTEIN: Rainey, by comparison, her whole bank has a total of 48 employees. So it's not like she can just have some giant compliance office.

VANEK SMITH: OK, so that is the situation. Do we have any idea under the Trump administration, with the Republican Congress what is going to happen to this part of Dodd-Frank?

GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. So this is one of the things I talked about with Barney Frank among other people. And one thing about community banks in particular is they're politically pretty popular. You know, a lot of congresspeople have a community bank in their district. It does seem like there's a pretty good chance that some of the mortgage lending rules in Dodd-Frank could be tweaked to go easier on small banks like Rainey's.


GOLDSTEIN: Next up, a regulator. A former regulator, anyway.

BART CHILTON: Testing, one, two, three, four. Testing. It's Bart Chilton.

GOLDSTEIN: Bart Chilton? The Bart Chilton?

CHILTON: Hey. The Bart Chilton. The long-haired freak from PLANET MONEY years ago, Jacob.

GOLDSTEIN: How is your hair?

CHILTON: I think, you know, you may have questioned back in the day whatever - whether or not it was a mullet.

GOLDSTEIN: Is it a mullet?

CHILTON: No, it's not a mullet.

VANEK SMITH: Wait, but is it a mullet?

GOLDSTEIN: I mean, it's, you know, highly regulated in the front, free market in the back.

VANEK SMITH: (Laughter) It's a mullet. That's a mullet.

GOLDSTEIN: So Chilton, until just a few years ago, he had this big-time regulatory job. He was a commissioner at a government agency called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees these financial products called derivatives.

VANEK SMITH: A derivative is basically a bet. In the case of the financial crisis, they were all these bets that people had placed on the mortgage market, on how the housing market was going to do.

GOLDSTEIN: And there were huge volumes of these bets - were being made, going back and forth. And the way it worked before the crisis is it was just like one banker would call up another and say, hey, you want to buy these derivatives? And then the other one would say sure, and they would make the deal. And that would be it. And nobody would know who was betting on what.

CHILTON: Totally nontransparent. Nobody knew what was going on, regulators or anybody else.

VANEK SMITH: So when the housing market blew up everybody kind of looked around and said, well, who is on the hook for these derivatives now? And nobody knew the answer.

CHILTON: We had a big boogeyman leading up to 2008. We didn't know what the risk was. That was the problem. We had no darn clue what the heck was going on.

GOLDSTEIN: The part of Dodd-Frank that Bart Chilton feels strongly about tries to solve that problem.

CHILTON: Title VII, Wall Street Transparency and Accountability, Subtitle A, Part I, Regulatory Authority.

GOLDSTEIN: Whew (ph). Keep going.

CHILTON: (Laughter) Section 723, Clearing.

VANEK SMITH: Clearing - so because of Dodd-Frank, those derivatives that used to be traded over the phone by bankers now have to be traded out in the open on what are known as clearing houses - basically like a stock market but for derivatives.

GOLDSTEIN: And these clearing houses, together with other new rules - they do a few things. For one thing, they give regulators a picture of who is doing what. They make the market more transparent.

VANEK SMITH: And for another, if the bank or insurance company or whoever is trading can't cover their bets, the clearinghouse itself is now on the hook for the money.

GOLDSTEIN: So now, of course, the clearinghouse has a very strong incentive to make sure that everyone can cover their bets.

VANEK SMITH: The buck stops there.

GOLDSTEIN: Exactly. And, you know, that seems good, but on the other hand, because the clearinghouse is on the hook, you now have this incredible amount of risk concentrated in the clearinghouse.

VANEK SMITH: A lot of bucks.

GOLDSTEIN: Many bucks stop at the clearinghouse. So, you know, I asked Chilton - like, yes, you've now moved the risk, but have you improved the system?

CHILTON: So clearinghouses allow us to understand what the risk is. We can disagree whether or not there are appropriate rules that shore up the clearinghouses, and that's something that should be constantly calibrated. But it's much better than what we had when there were big, dark, unregulated markets.

VANEK SMITH: So at least we know about the risk. It's not hidden like it was before.

GOLDSTEIN: Exactly. And he says on balance - like, that alone makes it a much better system. And I'll say, in terms of, you know, what's going to happen to Dodd-Frank, this part of Dodd-Frank - the clearinghouse rules for derivatives - seems pretty popular. It seems like, you know, the industry has gotten used to it. People generally agree with Chilton that the tradeoffs are worth it, that clearinghouses are a good idea, so clearinghouse rules and Dodd-Frank - here to stay probably.


GOLDSTEIN: Stacey Vanek Smith...


GOLDSTEIN: ...My favorite writer about finances...

VANEK SMITH: Matt Levine.

GOLDSTEIN: Matt Levine.

VANEK SMITH: (Laughter) Matt Levine.

GOLDSTEIN: Matt Levine used to work as a corporate lawyer, as an investment banker. Now he writes this column for Bloomberg View that, as I am endlessly saying around the office, is just, like, thoughtful and funny and not ideological. And just, you know, very often you get the sense that Matt Levine sees the world in a way that nobody else does. So, of course, I asked him to come in and talk to me about Dodd-Frank.

Is there some part of Dodd-Frank that you have strong feelings...

MATT LEVINE: I don't know if I have strong feelings, but I think the Volcker Rule is fascinating. I love the Volcker Rule.


LEVINE: It illuminates things about banking and, frankly, about politics.

GOLDSTEIN: The Volcker Rule - here, boiled down to one sentence, is the Volcker Rule.

LEVINE: Section 619 a1A of the Dodd-Frank Act, which says unless otherwise provided in this section, a banking entity shall not engage in proprietary trading.

GOLDSTEIN: What's proprietary trading?

LEVINE: Proprietary trading means trading with your money.

GOLDSTEIN: So it's saying if you're a bank, you can't trade with your own money.

LEVINE: Right.

GOLDSTEIN: And in this case, trade means...

LEVINE: That's where it gets complicated.


GOLDSTEIN: The Volcker Rule tries to divide the world into stuff we want banks to do and stuff we don't want banks to do. The stuff we do want banks to do category includes helping their customers who want to make trades, who want to buy and sell things. Market-making is the technical term for that.

VANEK SMITH: In the category of things we do not want banks to do - proprietary trading. And that is when a bank makes a bet in the market just to make money for itself - not in service of its customer or giving the customer something they want, but just to make money.

GOLDSTEIN: But distinguishing between those two things - between proprietary trading, which is bad, and market-making, which is good - can be harder than I would have thought, so here's an example. Say, I'm a bank. Stacey, you're my customer.


GOLDSTEIN: You want to sell a bond.

VANEK SMITH: I got a bond. Want to buy it?

GOLDSTEIN: Of course. So I buy from you because you're my customer, right? And I'm a bank. Then I turn around, and I sell that bond to somebody else for more than I paid you for it. I just made a profit. So now am I market-making - helping you out - or am I making a risky bet trading bonds in the market?

VANEK SMITH: The Volcker Rule has tied itself in knots trying to answer that question.

GOLDSTEIN: You brought props?

LEVINE: I brought the Volcker Rule.

GOLDSTEIN: Oh, you brought the rule.

LEVINE: I brought the Volcker Rule. This is the Volcker Rule.

GOLDSTEIN: So just tell me - let's see. It's pretty fat. It's not like crazy fat.

LEVINE: So one thing that happened is, like, when the Volcker Rule was finalized, people were like - it is 955 pages, which is not quite true. The Volcker Rule is 72 pages, came with an 882-page preamble.

GOLDSTEIN: (Laughter).

LEVINE: The preamble is useful to explain the Volcker Rule, but it's not the rule. The rule is only 72 pages.

GOLDSTEIN: So it's emblematic, right? Simple idea - hundreds of pages of explanation trying to clarify what it means, right? And this is, like, a classic regulatory problem. But Levine says, yes, OK, the details get ridiculous, but to really understand the Volcker Rule, you've got to get beyond the hundreds of pages and zoom out. Forget about the details and just look at the way the Volcker Rule has changed the world of banking.

LEVINE: If you, like, just think about, like, what it forbids and how you can game it and whatever, it feels rickety. But if you step back and sort of look at what's happened, banks have gotten rid of their proprietary trading decks - desks. That business is gone, and that mindset difference matters. Like, all people who were having fun and making a hundred million dollars are gone.

GOLDSTEIN: You know, those people - you know - whatever - they're living on their private islands, or maybe they're working at hedge funds. But whatever they're doing, they are not working at banks that hold ordinary people's money for safekeeping in government-insured accounts.

LEVINE: I think it's made banks more boring, which I think was, like, the overriding goal of post-2008 financial reform.

GOLDSTEIN: One last thing about the Volcker Rule - President Trump's treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, has said he supports the Volcker Rule in general, but he says it should be simpler - maybe knock off a few hundred pages.


VANEK SMITH: Next up, we talk to John Cochrane. He's an economist at the Hoover Institute, and he loves the free market.

GOLDSTEIN: I'm going to say something, and I want you to give me just one word, a couple words' response - minimum wage.

JOHN COCHRANE: Counterproductive.

GOLDSTEIN: Government regulation.

COCHRANE: (Laughter) How many words do I get on this one? (Laughter) Often well-intended, adverse consequences, gums up the works.


COCHRANE: Banks - huge crony capitalist nightmare.

GOLDSTEIN: Dodd-Frank?

COCHRANE: In terms of regulation and law and so forth, we need a big bonfire.

GOLDSTEIN: Did you say a big bonfire? What do we need to burn?

COCHRANE: Oh, most of Dodd-Frank, most of the subsidiary regulations and most of the regulatory system that failed and set up Dodd-Frank.

GOLDSTEIN: So does that mean we need to burn, like - what? - almost a hundred years now of sort of ideas about how we should regulate banks?

COCHRANE: Yeah, almost a hundred years.

VANEK SMITH: It's so extreme.

GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. You know, not entirely a hundred years - just, like, back to the 1930s. But here is what's interesting to me about Cochrane, right? He does not think we should burn the rules and, like, oh, just leave banks alone. Let banks be banks. That is not where he is coming from on this. In fact, he looks at Dodd-Frank, and, yes, he sees there are a million new rules here. But they do not solve this fundamental problem - too big to fail.

VANEK SMITH: Too big to fail.

GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, banks are still too big to fail, and he says this is for a pretty simple reason. Banks are playing almost entirely with money they have borrowed from other people.

VANEK SMITH: And it's this borrowing that makes the banks too big to fail. They owe too much money to too many people.

GOLDSTEIN: So Cochrane looks at this world, and he says, you know what? Let's do something that's actually way more radical than that. Let's do something, in fact, that banks themselves really do not want to do. He says, let's tell banks they cannot use so much borrowed money because that's the problem. So let's say, banks, you cannot do that one thing. In the most extreme version of his pitch, he says, you know what? Let's not let banks use any borrowed money at all.

VANEK SMITH: I mean that sounds like - in theory, like a reasonable idea.

GOLDSTEIN: But come on.

VANEK SMITH: But that was so extreme.


VANEK SMITH: That's so extreme.

GOLDSTEIN: I asked him about this.

So what happens when you pitch this idea, say, in Washington?

COCHRANE: You got to understand the way policy works, especially big things like this - they don't just sort of say Cochrane persuaded me, so we're going to tear up Dodd-Frank, and we're going to do this.


COCHRANE: Ideas have to - that's - ideas have to percolate around. And everyone has to sort of understand it, and they are.

VANEK SMITH: It sounds like the idea's just not going well.


GOLDSTEIN: It's going better than he makes it sound. In fact, both Republicans and Democrats are talking a lot about requiring banks to use more of their own money. Requiring more capital is the jargon.

VANEK SMITH: And that is one of the things that people say can actually help prevent another financial crisis from happening.

GOLDSTEIN: Yes. More of their own money, less borrowed money makes banks safer. And in fact, capital requirements have gone up in the post Dodd-Frank world. Under the Trump administration now, capital requirements could go up even further, and they are unlikely to go back down. So slowly but surely, the world is moving in Cochrane's direction.




GOLDSTEIN: OK, last chapter.

VANEK SMITH: No, it went so fast.

GOLDSTEIN: We've almost completed our tour of Dodd-Frank.

VANEK SMITH: (Laughter).

GOLDSTEIN: Finally, we have Sarah Ludwig, who runs a nonprofit in New York called the New Economy Project. And back in 2005, they created this hotline - a phone number poor people would call if they needed help, you know, dealing with the financial world.

SARAH LUDWIG: So we thought we were going to get a lot of calls about rent-to-own stores or payday loans or, you know, people who were trying to get access to a bank account.

GOLDSTEIN: That is not what happened.

LUDWIG: Pretty much from the get-go, the phone rang off the hook. And almost every single call we got - and this is not what we were expecting - were from people who were saying that they had found their bank accounts frozen, or their wages were garnished.

VANEK SMITH: Ludwig and her colleagues looked into it, and they found this whole industry they didn't even know existed - companies that would buy up overdue debt - medical debt or credit card debt - and then file lawsuits to collect it.

GOLDSTEIN: And she says the companies filing the lawsuits were very aggressive. In many cases, they were breaking the law in collecting this debt, but nobody was going after them.

VANEK SMITH: And here is where Dodd-Frank comes in.

LUDWIG: Title X, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Subtitle A, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Section 1011, Establishment of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

GOLDSTEIN: I'm sensing a theme.

VANEK SMITH: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - the CFPB - it is a government agency created by Dodd-Frank. And what's interesting about the CFPB is normally with regulatory agencies, they are organized by what they regulate. Like, the SEC regulates stocks, and the FDIC regulates banks.

GOLDSTEIN: But the CFPB is organized sort of by point of view, right? Specifically, it's created around the point of view of the consumer. And, you know, as a result, the CFPB has started enforcing laws that were on the books for decades - laws that are not part of Dodd-Frank. But these laws had largely gone unused. They were just kind of sitting there. One of these laws, Sarah Ludwig says, is an old law that covers what debt collectors can and cannot do.

LUDWIG: The Federal Trade Commission had - that was the agency that was charged with enforcing this law. It didn't really do much. It brought a few actions here and there. That's the magic of the CFPB - is that it breathes life into these laws that have been on the books for a very long time in a way that no other agency has.

GOLDSTEIN: Ludwig says she can see the difference.

LUDWIG: So our hotline is still open. And we're getting calls about a lot of things, but the number of people calling about abusive debt collection, particularly about these debt buyers that are suing people - that has absolutely gone way, way, way down.

GOLDSTEIN: Ludwig obviously loves the CFPB. Many Republicans do not. They say that it has too much power, that it has attacked the financial system and made it harder for people to borrow money. And so, of course, I asked everybody I talked to - what is likely to happen to the CFPB in this in this new political world? To get rid of the CFPB entirely would require 60 votes in the Senate 'cause you'd have to change the law. Republicans have 52 votes. Democrats generally like the CFPB, so that means the CFPB is probably not going to go away altogether. It'll probably stick around. But President Trump will get to appoint a new head of the CFPB - likely to be much less aggressive. And Congress could cut way back on funding for the agency, which could, of course, make it just much weaker.

VANEK SMITH: And that's really the picture for Dodd-Frank more generally. The way that it is enforced could change a lot, but it probably won't go away.

GOLDSTEIN: So Dodd-Frank will probably still be around for us to argue about when the next financial crisis hits.


GOLDSTEIN: Now that this story is done, I've got to come up with another story. There's a kind of story I really want to do. And I think you - and by you, I mean you who just listened to a whole show on Dodd-Frank - thank you - may be able to help. I'd love to do a story that's like a process story about how a business works. There was this magazine story I read a few years ago. I loved it. It was 22 hours in the life of this one Manhattan restaurant that serves, like, 800 plates of steak frites every day. I want that kind of story for PLANET MONEY.

You can email us at planetmoney@npr.org. I'm on Twitter, @JacobGoldstein. Stacey, what are you, SVanekSmith?

VANEK SMITH: That's it. That's me.

GOLDSTEIN: Our show today was produced by Sally Helm and edited by Bryant Urstadt.

VANEK SMITH: We want to thank Sean Tuffy.

GOLDSTEIN: Oh, yeah, Sean Tuffy works at Brown Brothers Harriman, and he was very helpful in talking me through what is and is not likely to happen with Dodd-Frank.

VANEK SMITH: And if you like PLANET MONEY, we have a favor to ask you. We'd like you to tell your friends about us on Twitter, on Facebook. Just let people know that you like PLANET MONEY.

GOLDSTEIN: There's a hashtag people are using to recommend podcasts this month. It's TryPod - T-R-Y-P-O-D. I'm Jacob Goldstein.

VANEK SMITH: And I'm Stacey Vanek Smith. Thanks for listening.


FRANK: I never use the phrase - almost never use the phrase Dodd-Frank. I learned early on any politician who refers to himself in the third person looks ridiculous with one exception, the late General Charles de Gaulle.

GOLDSTEIN: (Laughter).

FRANK: He would say en francais, de Gaulle is with you, and not look like a twit, but any other politician who refers to himself in the third person looks ridiculous. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.