Last week's Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed that neither the lawmakers on the panel nor Jamie Dimon understands the most fundamental principle of banking.
During the hearing, frequent reference was made to "risk," a word, which was, and should be still anathema in banking, for bankers do not take risks; they only underwrite risks.
Conversely, those who take risks are not bankers, but gamblers. They gamble either with stockholders' money, or, worse yet, depositors' money.
To make matters worse, the government, lacking professional banking experience, seeks to cure the ills of banking with such a monstrosity as the 2,000-plus page Dodd-Frank Act when the 37-page Glass-Steagall Act had done a creditable job for so many years.
Now retired, I have 50 years of old-school banking experience starting at the humble level of teller trainee going all the way up to bank president. An aggressive lender, I never lost money on a loan, nonetheless.
Ugo Nardi, a former commercial banker, retired in 2000.
Shirley Nelson