John Redwood Quotes

I don't feel any pressure at all to go along with anybody. I feel pressure to do the right thing for U.S. markets and U.S. investors.

Our purpose, as we face these challenges, remains clear - fair and orderly markets that allow for efficient capital formation, while protecting the interests of investors.

There is no evidence that more regulation makes things better. The most highly regulated industry in America is commercial banking, and that didn't save those institutions from making terrible decisions.

The largest number of jobs likely to be created by the JOBS Act will be for lawyers needed to clean up the mess that it will create.

The SEC has actually progressively loosened up the rules and recognized the value of social media, but the goal is always going to be to get information out as broadly as possible as quickly as possible.

Consumer groups fought hard to provide investor protections for 'special entities' such as pension funds, schools, and municipalities who purchase swaps. No comparable protection exists in the futures market.

Wall Street is greedy, reckless and they operate illegally. That's fine. But what do you do?

I am pleased to be part of Promontory's steady efforts to assist banks and other financial firms in meeting legal and regulatory obligations and challenges.

It has been an incredibly rewarding experience to work with so many dedicated SEC staff who strive every day to protect investors and ensure our markets operate with integrity.

Money never seems to be interested in strengthening regulatory agencies, for example, but always in subverting them, in making them miss the danger signs in coal mines and in derivatives trading and in deep-sea oil wells.

I would argue that no financial instrument counted as regulatory capital should be allowed to receive any protection from losses.

Even a casual reader of the financial pages knows that microcaps are a perennial headache for regulators and, above all, for investors because they have been prone to abuse by stock manipulators.

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.

It is not my belief that we need greater government regulation of hedge funds with respect to the systemic risk they create.

The regulator's job is not to guarantee us a profit, however much we cry. The regulator's job is to first make sure that the country goes forward and then make sure that the consumer goes forward.

Rules that may be easy for Wall Street are a death sentence for startups. They are easy to break accidentally and the penalty for noncompliance is severe.

The big-ego temper tantrums of Wall Street's titans must be a concern for everyone on Wall Street. Bad behavior and manipulation of the markets must be called out by those in the industry concerned for its future.

Financial regulators should be particularly attentive to the financial consequences of their actions.

Despite its heightened duty, at times the SEC has been inattentive to economic analysis.

Well, I like regulation as little as anybody else. It can be intrusive. It can be detailed. It can be bureaucratic. It can be unevenly administered. It can be unfair. But most regulations that we have for mutual funds and for banks are regulations that we earned. We did something wrong and we're paying a price for it.

Fraud will always exist. Enforcement of anti-fraud laws is a useful deterrent, but in the end there's no substitute for investor vigilance. Government regulations provide a false sense of security - and that's worth less than no sense of security at all.

The SEC does way more good than harm - the last thing I would do is get rid of the SEC...if accounting were thoroughly fixed, a lot of other sins would go away. We're paying a huge price for deterioration of accounting.

I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that regulators are going to be able to outsmart the bankers. So, the task of designing regulatory reform is trying to make more or less foolproof regulation and that's one of the advantages of the systemic category.

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.

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