Numerous economists and financial experts have labeled the financial crisis of 2008-2009, The Great Recession. Individuals and corporations alike were deeply affected by The Great Recession; either by losing their jobs or by the sudden stock sell off that occurred between 2008 and 2009. There was no question that something had to be done to prevent history from repeating itself. The only question was what to do. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010, was the proposed answer. The act was the work of Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of the Financial Services Committee and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The purpose of the legislation is “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” (The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2012). While the law officially made it easier for whistleblowers to alert authorities to fraud, the law itself can be seen as unprogressive, rather than progressive, or forward thinking. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, fraud can cost an average company five percent of their annual revenues, which makes the detection of such fraud a priority for all stakeholders (Brink, Lowe & Victoravich, 2013). Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, employees could only report instances of fraud internally, which triggered an organization to investigate the tip. This could potentially cause a conflict of interest. An advantage of the Dodd-Frank Act was the Whistleblower Rule, which aimed to improve upon this practice by offering an additional avenue for people to report suspected fraud. As such, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) created a new department, the Office of the Whistleblower, which is responsible for managing and administering the whistleblower program (Rashty, 2012). Along with the creation of the new office, the act instituted a reward system for individuals that provide information on suspected fraud. The reward, as the law states, provides whistleblowers between “10% and 30% of any amounts obtained in a successful regulatory enforcement action with sanctions of $1 million or more brought as a result of the tip,” (Rashty, 2012). Whistleblowers can still officially file a complaint internally at their organization; the act simply provides an additional option. History has shown that when individuals are rewarded for providing information, they are more likely to do so. The False Claims Act is a law that makes individuals and companies liable for defrauding the government. This law was amended in 1986 to provide a financial reward to individuals, whistleblowers, which reported certain acts that were deemed harmful to the federal government. Prior to 1986, there was only an average of six reported incidents per year. Following the amendment, the number rose to over 3,000 whistleblower incidents being filed by 2004; that is an average of 166 per year. (Brink, Lowe & Victoravich, 2013) Another aspect of the Dodd-Frank Act was the implementation of approximately 250 new regulations, but it also mandated that studies be performed to analyze the cause of the Great Recession (Evanoff & Moeller, 2012). Only focusing on the causes of the Great Recession, and not trying to study possible workarounds of the regulation, was a major disadvantage of the Dodd-Frank act. As told by our country’s history, studying the past does not always result in solutions for the future. Laws should be more forward thinking, rather than merely only correcting the mistakes of yesterday. An example of this was the 1980s savings and loan crisis, which was a byproduct of