Steve Mnuchin Quotes

There are elements of Dodd-Frank that clearly need to be curtailed.

The reality is that what we did in 2010 with the Dodd-Frank wasn't enough.

Some of my colleagues are unwilling to vote for any Dodd-Frank reforms, partly out of the political fear that any reforms will be seen as reducing regulations on the financial sector.

If you ever had the misfortune of reading all 2,000 pages of Dodd-Frank, which I have done - and it almost killed me - basically, all it does is create a list of all the things it wants the Fed to fix.

We could repeal Dodd-Frank. I think that would be a big help.

Financial regulatory reform is one of the top legislative priorities of the Obama Administration.

If anything, one would think we learn from Brexit is we need a strong, stable banking system, not one to repeal the consumer bureau and repeal Dodd-Frank and give Wall Street what it wants. That would be the worst kind of response.

Dodd-Frank represents the greatest regulatory burden on our economy, more so than all the other Obama-era regulations combined.

There are parts [in Dodd-Frank] that I don't agree with. But, in total, it is what it is.

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.

There's a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. Let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces.

The basic architecture of Dodd-Frank makes sense. At the same time, as a number of regulators and legislators have observed, the act was a complex effort that produced thousands of pages of rules.

Dodd-Frank has disproportionately burdened community banks, despite their having no role in the financial crisis.

To enable large U.S. banks to support their clients better, the Volcker rule should be clarified.

I have been working hard trying to implement Dodd-Frank reforms. We went through a terrible crisis in 2008. Many people lost their homes.

After Dodd-Frank, the big banks were bigger. The small banks are fewer.

I'll be very clear about this: I'm not a fan of getting rid of Dodd-Frank.

One of the things I do in banking committees is put pressure on them, and one of the other things I do is through my website, through outside pressure, and I ask people to come and help us join that fight where we can get people outside to keep putting the pressure on the Senate to make sure there are no compromises and weakening of Dodd-Frank.

The truth is that the banks that are really hurting under Dodd-Frank, really getting no relief, are the community banks.

In the wake of the 2008 recession, Congress and the Obama Administration rightly focused financial regulation on protecting the nation's financial system from itself.

Dodd-Frank is 2,000 pages long. It covers thousands of rules, regulations, interpretations and things like that.

Banks operate like a man who either wears his trousers round his chest, stifling breathing, as now, or round his ankles, exposing his assets. We want their trousers tied round their middle: steady lending growth; particularly to productive British business, especially small scale enterprise.

The Federal Reserve has a responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions and to contain systemic risks in financial markets.

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.

In the future, financial firms of any type whose failure would pose a systemic risk must accept especially close regulatory scrutiny of their risk-taking.