Quote

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

Capping the size of American banks won't eliminate the needs of big businesses; it will force them to turn to foreign banks that won't face the same restrictions.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a bank being big. In fact, there are some good arguments about universality of geography that in theory, if you have all your eggs in one little community, and some big employer goes out, that could be your downfall.

The only way to make sure no bank is too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big.

We need to think deeply about whether we can sustain banks that are not only too big to fail, but potentially too big to bail.

Forget about banks that are too big to fail; the focus should be on cities, municipalities and countries that are too big to fail.

As long as the big banks are allowed to remain big, their political leverage over Washington will remain big. And as long as their political leverage remains big, the taxpayer and economic tab for the next mess they create will be big.

Banks are concerned the central bank is imposing too many regulations. If the trend continues, we'll swing to heavy regulation. We need to have balanced regulation to encourage the economy.

The threshold question: Will banks continue to exist? The answer is yes, because society will still need the two essential functions they provide: mobilization of capital from providers to users, and facilitation of payments for goods and services.

Banks need to have large shareholders on the board that have a direct interest in their performance.