[DEFEATED] Fair Depository Standards Act

[Kenmoria]

“There are a few issues with regards to formatting and language, some of which are rather major. Therefore, I can say with confidence that this mission does not support this proposal.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: On mobile so can't do long writing, but are giftcards, mobile/computer games with any kind of ingame currency, not to mention microtransactions, and similar intentionally included in definitions? While non-corporated private banks are not?

[Marxist Germany]

"Why did you rush submitting this, Ambassador?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I will not be supporting this proposal. There are a significant number of laws which I posted in my response that have not been addressed which, I believe, create significant and fatal flaws that would harm any effective regulatory scheme as well as significantly reduce the sort of trade-offs which nations would be permitted to make with regard to banking regulation. That is to add on to the fact that the title refers to depository institutions and then the text regulates non-depository institutions depository standards and ignores many other sorts of actual problems associated with credit and core deposit markets.

[Lusane]

OOC: On mobile so can't do long writing, but are giftcards, mobile/computer games with any kind of ingame currency, not to mention microtransactions, and similar intentionally included in definitions? While non-corporated private banks are not?

Non-corporated private banks would be covered under the definitions of this provision. Gift cards are credits issued by stores and establishments to be used at their establishment only, so it would not be covered by these provisions. Ingame currency is an object purchased with funds; a product, therefore would not be covered by these provisions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Non-corporated private banks would be covered under the definitions of this provision. Gift cards are credits issued by stores and establishments to be used at their establishment only, so it would not be covered by these provisions. Ingame currency is an object purchased with funds; a product, therefore would not be covered by these provisions.

DEFINES financial institutions as public or private, physical or electronically controlled corporations or government institutions, licensed or unlicensed...

They're not though, insofar as they are not corporations or government institutions.

[Lusane]

I will not be supporting this proposal. There are a significant number of laws which I posted in my response that have not been addressed which, I believe, create significant and fatal flaws that would harm any effective regulatory scheme as well as significantly reduce the sort of trade-offs which nations would be permitted to make with regard to banking regulation. That is to add on to the fact that the title refers to depository institutions and then the text regulates non-depository institutions.

I have reviewed your laws and addressed your proposed edits. While I appreciate your thoughts on how the matter may affect the regulatory scheme, I simply don't agree with it. Further, when you state that the text regulates non-depository institutions, the only sort of regulation in that regard is when a non-depository institution has direct dealings with funds that are placed in a depository account, it seems to me you misunderstood that provision in its entirety. The title does not refer to a depository institution, it refers to depository standards.

[Lusane]

"Why did you rush submitting this, Ambassador?"

OOC: Was no rush to submit, I made the edits that people proposed. I further spoke to a number of delegates who urged me to submit the proposal in the state of Draft #4. I did so.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have reviewed your laws and addressed your proposed edits. While I appreciate your thoughts on how the matter may affect the regulatory scheme, I simply don't agree with it. Further, when you state that the text regulates non-depository institutions, the only sort of regulation in that regard is when a non-depository institution has direct dealings with funds that are placed in a depository account, it seems to me you misunderstood that provision in its entirety.

DEFINES investment brokerages as public or private, physical or electronically controlled corporations or government institutions, licensed or unlicensed, according to regulations in the applicable member nation; in which qualifies under at least one of the following:
with a purpose to hold or invest consumer funds in any brokerage with the intent to accrue dividends.
with a purpose to hold or invest government funds in any brokerage with the intent to accrue dividends.

DEFINES lenders as public or private, physical or electronically controlled corporations or government institutions, licensed or unlicensed, according to regulations in the applicable member nation; in which qualifies under the following... issues collateralized credit products or loans in which a security interest in the form of currency is placed in a transactional account.

It's like, not though. Those aren't deposits. Brokerages are places where I instruct them to invest my money in some manner in some fund. And nor do lenders necessarily fund their loans from deposits. Quicken Loans, exempli gratia, borrows money to get money to lend money. Unless you mean that lenders are regulated only if there is a depository element included, i.e. with currency in transactional accounts... which is just conceding points about other sorts of lending not being regulated, even if those other sorts of lending are more important. Or, with regard to brokerages, conceding that you're using the word incorrectly.

The title does not refer to a depository institution, it refers to depository standards.

That's fair. I'll correct my assessment above using strikethroughs.

---

As an aside, I'm very happy that at least someone else is trying to enact financial regulations, which doesn't seem to be altogether common in the Assembly. It'll be nice to see the how the waters are tested.

[Lusane]

------.

I have posted a more detailed response to your questions on the TNP forums.

[Ransium]

This resolution is now at vote.

[United States of Americanas]

Voting in support of this as it’s just plain common sense. Financial institutions go insolvent and then the government has to bail out the consumers at taxpayer expense. Enough of that, it’s time for financial institutions to be held responsible for insuring all accounts.

[Sildavialand]

... ESTABLISHES the Depository Regulators Committee (“DRC”), a regulatory body under the World Assembly to supervise and render inspections and audits of member nation institutions for direct compliance with regulation for the protection of the consumer;

ESTABLISHES that the DRC shall have the jurisdiction, with reasonable evidence to enact disciplinary actions, fines, or closures of institutions if they are found in violation of the provisions of this Act on a situational basis...

This proposal is clearly out of the question for a World Assembly of sovereign nations.
We don’t have a common currency, and ALL World Assembly members are not even in the same region (some of them appear to be more a National structure, with ministeries and “political parties”, as if it would be a home-political field instead of a NATIONS one).

Therefore it is out of the question that a WA organism, the DRC, may “supervise”, “render inspections and audits” or “have jurisdiction” on matters which, even if a recommendation on fixing a deposit regulatory system, should and must stay within the most basic aspects of national sovereignty.

[Sildavialand]

Voting in support of this as it’s just plain common sense. Financial institutions go insolvent and then the government has to bail out the consumers at taxpayer expense. Enough of that, it’s time for financial institutions to be held responsible for insuring all accounts.

Your argument would be reasonable... in the framework of a national, internal policy discussion.
But this is NationStates.There is not a unique economic, financial or organisational system, each nation having its own currency, private or public property systems and laws. Such a proposal would be appropriate in a Government RP framework, not in a multinational, worldwide body of sovereign nations.

[Jocospor]

The use of the word 'fair' in this resolution's title has compelled the High Delegate's Office to vote accordingly. Consult pp. 164-166 of Confederation-Approved Adjectives (2017, 3rd ed.) if concerned.

[Dirty Americans]

Your argument would be reasonable... in the framework of a national, internal policy discussion.
But this is NationStates.There is not a unique economic, financial or organisational system, each nation having its own currency, private or public property systems and laws. Such a proposal would be appropriate in a Government RP framework, not in a multinational, worldwide body of sovereign nations.

What's this "NationStates" you speak of? This is the World Assembly where we try to micromanage in glorious detail the internal affairs of all the member nations who are dumb enough to sign on to this institution. It's perfectly valid in this case because we all are a part of a global economy. Therefore we vote YES.

[Araraukar]

Non-corporated private banks would be covered under the definitions of this provision.

OOC: As pointed out by IA and me both (and us agreeing on something to do with financial things is rare!), they aren't.

Gift cards are credits issued by stores and establishments to be used at their establishment only, so it would not be covered by these provisions.

Except the definition has "transacts, trades, or holds funds for a consumer in relation to a deposit based account of any type" - you can have a store account (bonus point memberships come to mind) which is a "deposit based account" that the store "holds funds for a consumer". It's the "account of any type" that gets you in trouble. If you'd just talked about banks and bank accounts, then it'd be fine, but you're talking about "public or private, physical or electronically controlled corporations or government institutions". That catches a great many things that aren't considered "financial institutions" the way the words are normally understood.

Ingame currency is an object purchased with funds; a product, therefore would not be covered by these provisions.

You don't play many games, I take it? You usually earn the currency in a game, rather than buy it. Heck, your definitions make the Bank of Gielinor a "financial institution". Nowhere do you say that "currency" has to refer to a real national currency, which, again, is a huge problem.

OOC: Was no rush to submit, I made the edits that people proposed. I further spoke to a number of delegates who urged me to submit the proposal in the state of Draft #4. I did so.

Which "delegates" was this? I don't think they either understood how GA works, or had your best interests in mind.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bank of Gilenor is the worst bank I've ever seen, massively abusing its monopoly power to force upon depositors a zero per cent interest rate! Shocked! Especially when they are so rich earning exchange fees from the Grand Exchange!

[Coconut Palm Island]

The King of Coconut Palm Island has instructed our WA representative to vote for this resolution. While other nations have pointed out specific flaws in the language and loopholes that can be exploited, we trust the WA to enforce this in good faith. We agree with the spirit and intent of the provision, and our nation has regulations much heavier than the ones listed here, so we have no reason not to support.

[Azlaake]

I'm really sorry for asking, but is there a resolution for mandatory vaccines?????

[Gudmund]

"ESTABLISHES that the DRC shall have the jurisdiction, with reasonable evidence to enact disciplinary actions, fines, or closures of institutions if they are found in violation of the provisions of this Act on a situational basis."
"REQUIRES institutions to submit to random audits from the DRC, in response to an inquest brought by an applicable member nation."
"PROHIBITS institutions from placing holds, freezes, or closures on depository accounts without reason."

Completely against, I'm not okay with handing this much power over to the WA. The ability to close down financial institutions - public, private, or government owned - simply isn't acceptable.

[Gonadez]

My region Aukumnia completely opposes this bill as it contains too many frauds and concealed interpretations based on vague words and unneceasary definitions. The bill does not also show a thorough understanding or review by the author before being posted. Therefore, it may harm the economic freedom index of many nations in our region.

Federation of Gonadez
WA Delegate from Aukumnia

[Kenmoria]

The King of Coconut Palm Island has instructed our WA representative to vote for this resolution. While other nations have pointed out specific flaws in the language and loopholes that can be exploited, we trust the WA to enforce this in good faith. We agree with the spirit and intent of the provision, and our nation has regulations much heavier than the ones listed here, so we have no reason not to support.

“I would encourage you to change your vote, ambassador, as this proposal, were it to become law, would bar future legislation on the subject, which could be less ambiguous. I would much rather have a concise piece of law than a nebulous one.”

[Creslonia]

"The Republic of Creslonia will be voting against this proposal. The wording and unnecessary definitions just scream loopholes and fraudulency. Not to mention how much power this would give to the World Assembly. Managing our nation's own national financial institution's is none of the WA's concern - leave us some shred of sovereignty, will you?"

- Alexander Finch
Secretary of Foreign Affairs

[Dulveus]

We are all in favor of regulation of business to protect the people, but this gives the Assembly simply too much power. Dulveus has its own regulatory laws.