I'm largely in favor of financial reform.
The Federal Reserve, the Treasury, all the regulator agencies - if there's a problem of the financial mechanism in society, the only one to fix it is government. They've got a legitimate role.
If I could wave a magic wand, I'd break up the banking system.
My preference is for the Federal Reserve to be the systemic risk regulator, because the responsibility for identifying and limiting potential problems is a natural complement to its role in monetary policy.
The Obama administration's plan is to have the Federal Reserve regulate banks that might pose a 'systemic risk' if they were to fail.
I would say the No. 1 problem with the Volcker Rule is it's too complicated, and people don't know how to interpret it.
The few effective provisions of Dodd-Frank are masked by its many flaws - flaws that have been and will continue to be detrimental to the American economy and our financial future if not reversed.
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.
The Fed has neither the clear statutory authority nor the mandate to anticipate and deal with risks across our entire financial system.
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.
The Federal Reserve is not charged with designing or evaluating proposals for housing finance reform. But we are responsible for regulating and supervising banking institutions to ensure their safety and soundness, and more broadly for the stability of the financial system.
