Shervin Pishevar Quotes

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.

Repealing rules therefore requires federal agencies to explain why the factual and scientific bases for the predicted benefits of their rules were wrong or no longer adequate to justify those rules.

I support adjustments designed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of regulation without sacrificing safety and soundness or undermining macroprudential goals.

We must advance regulatory reforms.

It satisfies the public clamor for a government supervision of the railroads at the same time that the supervision is almost entirely nominal.

Dodd-Frank greatly expanded the regulatory reach of the Federal Reserve. It did not, however, examine whether it was correctly structured to account for these new and expansive powers. Therefore, the Committee will be examining the appropriateness of the Fed's current structure in a post Dodd-Frank world.

The basic architecture of Dodd-Frank makes sense. At the same time, as a number of regulators and legislators have observed, the act was a complex effort that produced thousands of pages of rules.

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

It's very important to have the comfort of the regulator in every geography where you operate.

As presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have recognized, the real question is whether regulations, whether new or old, are justified. That requires a careful analysis of their costs and their benefits.

In the old days, you dealt with one regulator. Now it's five or six. You all should ask the question how American that is.

I'm a former insurance regulator. What companies really want and need is some clarity about what the rules are.

We need to work together to support common-sense solutions to establish and maintain regulatory certainty and predictability for the mining industry and reduce excessive, duplicative, and expensive permitting delays.

Some amount of support from government and regulator is required when you are looking at resolving systemic issues.

A regulator is supposed to create and enforce a standard.

The notion that we would market devices that would allow someone to place themselves beyond the law troubles me a lot.

I frankly think we in the financial service world believe we need appropriate kinds of regulations. No question about that. But when something like Dodd-Frank has been created, sort of in the mystery of night, it is a huge document. It's vast. It weighs about 10 pounds when I carry it around.

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?

What one has created by regulation, one could address by regulation.

When you hear the sound of the Hyperloop One, you hear the sound of the future.

I don't interfere with regulators.

There's a gazillion different business license fees. And just keeping up with all the regulations - it just doesn't stop.

The costs in F1 are extremely high, it is down to the regulators to control those costs through having stable regulations, every time you change the rules, there is a huge cost involved.

Setting regulatory certainty is very important for bitcoin. I'm opposed to the regulations, but the bitcoin businesses need to know the rules of the game in order to move ahead.

What a nightmare it would be if we individually had to criminalise every single abuse of every single commodity, market or financial product. There are thousands of these and new ones being invented every day. Such an approach would have disastrous implications for regulation and policy-making. Any slide towards it must be resisted.