Mitt Romney Quotes

My fantasy is to break up the big banks. I wish we would end 'too big to fail' in our banking system.

Limiting the destructive risk-taking by large financial firms and banks which are 'too big to fail' is needed.

Governments need to be authorized to provide 'open bank assistance.' The convolutions of Dodd-Frank aimed at 'avoiding' this tactic are ludicrous and will prove to be extremely costly to the system.

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.

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.

We have institutions that have been allowed to become too big to fail because we had all kinds of flaws in our financial infrastructure, in the whole way over-the-counter derivatives work.

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

Limits should be placed on how big big banks can become.

We should ban banks from risk-taking because society is going to pay the price.

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

I'm really concerned that too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial.

The heart of the 2008 financial crisis was a coterie of reckless financial executives, working for too-big-to-fail financial companies, who were handsomely compensated for taking risks that almost ruined the economy when they failed.

We don't have a good legal justification for breaking up the banking system.

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.

It's hard to punish and save the banks at the same time.

I would drastically revise much of the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation, which I call the 'Bureaucrat Full Employment Act.'

Bailouts may have been more tolerable in the early 1990s when they were rare and their use for a failing bank was uncertain. That is no longer the case.

Separating out banks and investment banks right now under Glass-Steagall would have very big implications to the liquidity and the capital markets and banks being able to perform necessary lending.

The too-big-to-fail reform project is massive in scope. In my view, it holds real promise. But the project will take years to complete. Success is not assured.

One of the big problems we had during the financial crisis was the intermingling of banks and holding companies and complex securities.

We must learn the lessons of the 2008 crash: no company should be able to become too big to fail.

The TARP program was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures.

The role of liquidity in systemic events provides yet another reason why, in the future, a more system wide or macroprudential approach to regulation is needed.

The Obama administration's plan is to have the Federal Reserve regulate banks that might pose a 'systemic risk' if they were to fail.

We support too big to fail. We want the government to be able to take down a big bank like JP Morgan and it could be done. We think Dodd-Frank, which we supported parts of, gave the FDIC the authority to take down a big bank.