Sharan Burrow 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.

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.

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.

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

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

If we are really serious about preventing another crisis like the 2008 meltdown, we should simply ban complex financial instruments unless they can be unambiguously shown to benefit society in the long run.

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

I think Dodd-Frank has contributed to a concentration of banking assets in the hands of a small number of banks.

I don't want to create a too-big-to-fail player.

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

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.

For market discipline to constrain risk effectively, financial institutions must be allowed to fail. Under optimal financial regulatory and financial system infrastructures, such a failure would not threaten the overall system.

It is no wonder that bank capital is regulated. When borrowing and lending is profitable, it is tempting for banks to scale up their operations and to borrow and lend too much in relation to their capital, in effect reducing the effectiveness of the potential capital cushion.

As we try to make the financial system safer, we must inevitably confront the problem of moral hazard.

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.

In the financial system we have today, with less risk concentrated in banks, the probability of systemic financial crises may be lower than in traditional bank-centered financial systems.

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

Don't act like a bank unless you are a bank. That was a really big lesson learned from 2008.

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

No bank should be too big or too complex to fail, but almost any bank is too big to liquidate quickly, particularly in the midst of a crisis.