February 10, 2012
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. This kind of unethical and greedy behavior is what the Glass Steagull Act was intended to prevent and the reason why its repeal led banks to invest in sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps, which of course led to the economic meltdown of 2008. The nation's economy has a long way to go before we recover from that. The people responsible have suffered far less than those of us in lower income brackets, unfortunately. Without the Volcker rule, we remain at high risk for future bailouts. After the S&L scandal of the 1980s and the subprime debacle that led to big bailouts more recently, I think U.S. taxpayers deserve better protection.
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,
Karisa Bohon
Lafayette, CA