Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting (right) and FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams.
On two regulators finalizing a revamp of the complex Volcker Rule that was intended to ban proprietary trading:

"Nice to see some much-needed sanity returning to these rules, which were a compliance nightmare . . . Can we please quit pretending that prop trading was even a tiny contributor to the financial crisis?"

Related: What's left of the Volcker Rule after the final rewrite?
stocks-falling.jpeg
Another reader responds to regulators easing certain Volcker Rule requirements:

"What's left of the Volcker Rule after the final rewrite? I now call it the 'Alice in Wonderland rule.' Like the Cheshire Cat, it has slowly disappeared so now only it's smile remains."

Related: What's left of the Volcker Rule after the final rewrite?
Paul Volcker
A third reader reacts to regulators streamlining the Volcker Rule:

"These reforms return the focus of the Volcker Rule back to genuine proprietary trading that has systemic consequences. Banks and regulators will not be distracted by enforcing rules that have nothing to do with systemic risk."

Related: What's left of the Volcker Rule after the final rewrite?
USPS.jpg
On criticisms about the U.S. Postal Service diving deeper into banking in an attempt to fix its financial woes:

"What the USPS has of value is real estate. How about they rent SOME of it out to a bank or credit union which has a charter to serve that area?"

Related: Postal banking won’t deliver for USPS
U.S. Post Office worker, postal banking, mailman, postman
Another reader responds to the USPS attempting to get further into banking:

"Selling paper money orders and cashing these for recipients is a far cry from the tech-heavy banking world that we live in today. Enormous amounts of capital investments would be required to allow the new bank to be competitive."

Related: Postal banking won’t deliver for USPS
HUD Secretary Ben Carson
On the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposing a change to its “disparate impact” standard, making it harder for consumers to allege discrimination:

"Find me another place in American jurisprudence where the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that something DID NOT occur and/or that there was no other possible approach that would have yielded a different result. It's an absurd test.."

Related: HUD plan to alter anti-discrimination rule called 'deeply cynical'
home-construction-bl-080919.jpg
Another reader responds to HUD's plan to make it more difficult for consumers to accuse a lender of unintentional discrimination, called disparate impact:

"It is unfortunate that judicial interpretation can blur the lines of regulatory boundaries and that it potentially effects members and consumers in this way."

Related: HUD plan to alter anti-discrimination rule called 'deeply cynical'
freddie-mac-bl032618.jpg
On an op-ed claiming the true preferred stockholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the taxpayers who helped fund the conservatorship:

"Receivership is the only way to silence these minions."

Related: Taxpayers are the GSEs' true stockholders
FHFA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Another reader responds to the op-ed stating that taxpayers are the real stockholders of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac:

"Refreshing, a well formed argument in favor of, dare I say it, common sense."

Related: Taxpayers are the GSEs' true stockholders