Jerome Powell Quotes

The term 'too big to fail' must be excised from our vocabulary.

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

Too big to fail is too big.

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.

Dodd-Frank represents the greatest regulatory burden on our economy, more so than all the other Obama-era regulations combined.

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

The idea that either individuals or organisations are 'too big to fail' or that the tech and start-up sector is somehow different is wrong.

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.

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

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.

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.

What Obama is saying is simple: The United States has become Too Big To Fail.

I'm probably a believer in abandoning too-big-to-fail firms or breaking them up in some way so that the system can try to take care of itself. I imagine you're not going to get there, and therefore, I suspect regulation is what's going to be required.

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.

No one suggested Lehman deserved to be saved. But the argument has been made that the crisis might have been less severe if it had been saved, because Lehman's failure created remarkable uncertainty in the market as investors became confused about the role of the government and whether it was picking winners and losers.

The only reason investors haven't run screaming from an obviously corrupt financial marketplace is because the government has gone to such extraordinary lengths to sell the narrative that the problems of 2008 have been fixed.

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

We need to hold Wall Street accountable for issuing the kinds of deceptive loans that nearly brought our economy to its knees in 2008.

The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will reestablish a wall between commercial and investment banking, make our financial system more stable and secure, and protect American families.

Well, Mark, I led the charge for five or six years to get reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I was chairman of an organization called 'FM Policy Focus.' What we were saying was, if there was blip in the housing market, Fannie and Freddie would destabilize the greatest economy in the world.

Since 1840 the United States has had 12 systemic banking crises and Canada has had none …. It all has to do with politics.

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

Dodd-Frank has disproportionately burdened community banks, despite their having no role in the financial crisis.

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

Where human lives are concerned, time is always short, yet the world has witnessed the vast resources that governments can draw upon to rescue financial institutions deemed 'too big to fail.'