February 11, 2012
I do not think a letter from members of the public is required to convince bankers of how destructive their investment practices have been since the over turning of Glass-Steagall. The three legged tripod of synthetic CDO's, improper securities ratings, and credit default swap insurance had too much complexity built into the entire scheme to have been any kind of an accident with unintended consequences. This structure was purposely created and the risks were ignored in favor of freeing up investment capital (as well as generating capital that did not truly exist) to extend the capital leverage of investment houses to create even more havoc in the market. Meanwhile the risk to ordinary Americans was monumental and it seemed no one cared as long as the money kept rolling in the door. No amount of money became enough and the greed escalated to inconceivable heights as Wall Street recklessly put the entire nation at risk. Now they are wanting to feel the pulse of the public to see if it is perhaps okay to recreate the same scenario and do it all again? Incredible!
I'm writing in support of a strong Volcker Rule. My family and I were affected by the economic collapse of 2008, and we don't want it to happen again.
As you prepare the final rule, bear in mind the fundamental goal of the rule - to ban big banks from exposing consumers and taxpayers to risky proprietary trades.
Banks that break the rule should face swift, automatic penalties for violations. Violations of the Volcker Rule endanger the stability of our financial system. They should not be treated lightly.
Exemptions should only be allowed if they do not undermine this goal. If an exemption would result in exposing consumers and taxpayers to bank risk, it should be rejected.
Thank you for considering my comment,