Quote

We think it would be safer if the Bank of England had responsibility for solvency regulation of UK-based banks, as well as having an overall duty to keep the system solvent. Otherwise, there could be dangerous delays if a banking crisis did hit.

You want banks to take some risk, but intelligent risk.

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.

Banks are run by executives, and executives protect themselves, and that does not always mean that banks are going to behave rationally.

We have put in place policies through supervision and regulation that has greatly enhanced the safety and soundness of the banking system.

You have safety and soundness as primary purpose of the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the other agencies which control banking regulation.

Banks will have to win the confidence of their customers through fair dealing, making good loans, and remaining financially healthy.

Banking is a very treacherous business because you don't realize it is risky until it is too late. It is like calm waters that deliver huge storms.

Banks are there to support businesses that have justifiable needs.

If a bank's too big so that it can't fail without hurting our economy, well then, it's too big.