Financial regulators have long claimed that MetLife is a systemically important financial institution, according to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. The company disagrees with the designation, but in anticipation of greater capital requirements from regulators, in January 2016, it announced it is moving to ease the burden by divesting much of its U.S.-based life-insurance unit. The company said that doing so would allow it to compete more effectively and generate stronger returns. What are the ramifications for MetLife and other large insurance companies? What do you think about the impact that Dodd Frank has had so far on large financial institutions? POST 1 When I was looking into this discussion, I’ve come across some different observations. I had initially thought that the “too big to fail” label was exclusive to banking institutions, where non-banking institutions are included under this law (Pierce, B.). The general commentary on the topic is whether we should impose restrictions on institutions simply based on size (assets under management) or by “systematic impact”. This is sort of the argument that people against the bill make, where the entire insurance industry has been lobbying to get itself out of the bill since its inception. Honestly I think that with size comes systematic impact in the financial services industry, because everything is too interconnected. I think that insurance companies try to wiggle themselves out of the rule because their main sources of income are based on putting the cash flow into interest bearing assets typically better than risk free, where capital restriction stifles their growth dramatically. The “too big to fail” law seems to have shown improvement and favoritism to larger banks despite its effort in trying to limit their influence. Thanks to this law, large banks are now in a position to pay lower interest rates to depositors and investors due to their advantage of being guaranteed by the government. Also, banks that are labeled “too big to fail” are viewed by depositors and investors as safer places to store their wealth. Smaller banks on the other hand are struggling due to their increased competition among these large banks and among themselves (Wiseman, P., & Gogoi, P.). Research shows that some of these smaller banks are even willing to undertake large M&A transactions (even paying more than the value of the acquiring bank) just to put them over the asset sizes that are viewed as the threshold of being “too big” (How Much Would Banks Be Willing to Pay to Become 'Too-Big-to-Fail' and to Capture Other Benefits?). Lastly, the difference between cost of funds between larger banks and smaller banks has widened ever since the rule (Baker, Dean). I think that the implications of the rule have been in favor of the larger part of the banking sector, where now smaller banks will continue to conduct acquisitions in order to reach the same size status. Historically we can see that the number of banks has decreased by 36% from 2008 to 2019. Also the number of establishing new banking institution has dramatically decreased over time (BankFind suite.). Regarding insurance companies and other non-banking companies, it seems that the trend is to work on separating and creating spin offs in order to achieve the ability to be freer with their capital spending habits (as we are now seeing with Metlife’s choice of operations) (Finkle, V.). POST 2 In 2015 the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) labeled MetLife a systematically important financial instition or SIFI. This title suggests that MetLife could pose a systemic risk that could threated the finanicial system if it were to fail sometime in the future. Another potential "too big too fail situation". MetLife challenged the label and took the FSOC to court over the decision. In 2016, the US District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer rescinded the decision saying " FSOC officials departed from their own standards and failed to consider the cost to MetLife, which brought the case" However, the Obama administration appealed the decision saying that she was "profoudly mistaken" and that the decicion would affect that FSOC's ability to exercise its authority. Despite years of legal battle, in 2018, MetLife and the FSOC filed a joint motion to dismiss the federal government to appeal to dismiss, effectively bringing the legal battle to an end. Had the SOFI label been allowed to stand Metlife would have been forced to change its business model. They claimed that the increased regulation would have signicantly increased their cost to do business and therefore would have had to divest its investment in order to minimize risk. GE Capital was also given the of SIFI but instead of challenging the FSOC in court they decided to "minimize the size of its assets and operations" in order to shed its SIFI label. Independent cost benefit analyses need to be ran on these types of label which incur increased cost and regulation because it could force a company to completely change its business model or it could just jack up the price for everyday people trying to buy life insurance.

Respond to discussion below: Chapter 1.What do you think it means to have a family-centered approach where teachers “use the strengths of parents to help educate their children”? What role do a school counselor and/or teacher play in creating a family-centered approach?What I think it means to have a family-centered approach where teachers “use the strengths of parents to help education their children” is that teachers and families take on a role of educating their children. They need to discuss what each family believes to be their expectations of school and the teacher and what goals they hope for their child to reach. I think that teachers would be surprised with how much knowledge or lack of knowledge families have when it comes to their child’s education. Using the that knowledge they can develop a plan that works best for both the teacher and family and ultimately benefiting the child. It is the role of the teacher to ensure they reach out to each family and establish an expectation that educating their child is a partnership that requires all parties taking on responsibility. By working together, the teacher and families can play on each other’s strengths to meet the needs of the child.