Wilbur Ross Quotes

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.

Fannie Mae may have conformed to the rules but the rules didn’t conform to reality. A major bank or financial institution could meet every single regulatory requirement yet still be at the risk of collapse.

There is a very real danger that financial regulation will become a wolf in sheep's clothing.

… attempting to supervise the financial sector is a fool’s errand

Regulations don't solve things. Supervision solves things. If we could figure out that the subprime thing was a train wreck that was coming, where were the regulators?

Financial regulators should be particularly attentive to the financial consequences of their actions.

I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that regulators are going to be able to outsmart the bankers. So, the task of designing regulatory reform is trying to make more or less foolproof regulation and that's one of the advantages of the systemic category.

We're one of the most highly regulated industries, and we have to pay attention to what government is doing.

Creating a regulatory system that reflects the modern-day realities of financial markets is not as difficult as it may appear.

This country, of course, needs fundamental reform of our financial regulatory system, as I, and many other financial institution executives, have publicly advocated for a considerable period.

It's the FSA and its plethora of EU bodies that's failed.

The Commission concludes that the banking supervisors failed to adequately and proactively identify and police the weaknesses of the banks and thrifts or their poor corporate governance and risk management, often maintaining satisfactory ratings on institutions until just before their collapse. This failure was caused by many factors, including beliefs that regulation was unduly burdensome, that financial institutions were capable of self-regulation, and that regulators should not interfere with activities reported as profitable.

If the large banks can do this without breaking the rules, then the rules should be revamped.

We're charged by Congress with regulating financial institutions. We take that mission seriously. We are tough supervisors and regulators.

I believe that we have to have a new regulatory regime for our financial system.

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.

Regulation is necessary, particularly in a sector, like the banking sector, which exposes countries and people to a risk.

In the U.A.E. we were the least-regulated environment in the region, and over time we are seeing more and more regulation coming in. On the other hand, a central bank can overregulate and choke the economy, and then we will have a dead banking industry.

Under the Dodd-Frank law, the SEC got the lion's share of the rules to write, more than 100 rules, and we have done an extraordinary amount of that. Eighty percent have been either proposed or adopted. So, a lot, a lot accomplished but of course, more to do.

Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999.

Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules.

They not only deregulated. They desupervised.

When an industry has a blanket exemption and someone suggests the most modest regulation, they see it changing the universe in which they do business.

Strong banks want strong regulation.

No significant deregulation of financial institutions occurred in the last 30 years.