Martin O'Malley Quotes

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.

Bailing out every bank that fails makes the system riskier, not safer.

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.

Any bank that is too big to fail is too big. Period.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Too big to fail is too big.

Banks too big to fail are too big to be regulated or controlled by the Federal Government.

No single housing finance institution should be too big to fail.

When the banks grow to or when these financial institutions grow to such a size that they can't sustain themselves, or what have you, they have problems, economic problems, or financial problems, they shouldn't be able to look back to you and I, the taxpayer, to be bailed out.

If they are too big to fail, make them smaller.

If bankers become overly conservative in response to past lending mistakes - or if examiners force such behavior - it will hurt bankers' own long-term interests and the economy in general.

I don't think anybody's too big to fail. I think the - I think if what you've got is sort of a large number of institutions who are going to fail, then that ends up affecting the system.

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.

The thought for a long time was that banks needed to be too controlled, too regulated to be turned over to the Wild West of the Net. Then the credit meltdown hit, and we saw just how reckless these so-called safe and regulated institutions were.

It is probably the case that some regulation of financing will make crises less likely, and I would say higher capital requirements are an almost fail-safe way to make banks safer. But there are a lot of other things that may not be doing that, and so we need to be careful about sort of, like, rushing to one conclusion or another.

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

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.

Businesses have no place being 'too big to fail.'

We must limit the perception that some institutions are either too big or too interconnected to fail.

There's something called, 'resolution authority,' which gives the government the power to takeover a failing bank - something they didn't have pre-Lehman Brothers.