We have put in place policies through supervision and regulation that has greatly enhanced the safety and soundness of the banking system.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Regulation is necessary, particularly in a sector, like the banking sector, which exposes countries and people to a risk.
Whether or not you have good consumer protection has a big effect on safety and soundness of the banking community, especially smaller banks.
You have safety and soundness as primary purpose of the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the other agencies which control banking regulation.
We need open, competitive, market economies... but at the same time with effective regulation and supervision.
Efforts to promote financial stability through adjustments in interest rates would increase the volatility of inflation and employment. As a result, I believe a macro-prudential approach to supervision and regulation needs to play the primary role.
The fundamental problem with banks is what it's always been: they're in the business of banking, and banking, whether plain vanilla or incredibly sophisticated, is inherently risky.
We need financial regulation that allows businesses and the banks they use to have access to the tools that help keep prices of consumer goods - like groceries and home heating oil - steady, while ensuring that the taxpayers are never again on the hook for the types of wild bets that helped crash the economy in 2008.
If you want to change the way your banking system is regulated, if you want to learn the mistakes of what's gone wrong, then you have to change your government.
There is no evidence that more regulation makes things better. The most highly regulated industry in America is commercial banking, and that didn't save those institutions from making terrible decisions.
Banking, I would argue, is the most heavily regulated industry in the world. Regulations don't solve things. Supervision solves things.