Financial institutions and their respective lawyers are in the process of understanding the final Volcker Rule.
"It's a monster," said Gil Schwartz, a partner at Schwartz & Ballen and a former attorney for the Fed. "Anybody that comes up with a conclusion that the rule is tougher, easier, what the impact will be, is kind of a fool's errand, because it's much, much, too difficult to understand as a whole until you really understand what changes remain and how it's going to impact the institutions."
"The controversial ban drafted by the five regulatory agencies is intended to raise a wall between proprietary trading and market-making activities at commercial banks. But regulators were careful to avoid drawing bright lines and setting explicit limits, introducing numerous gray areas with ample room for judgment," writes American Banker's Donna Borak.
"You're trying to regulate a behavior which by its nature has a certain element of subjectivity to it," said Greg Lyons, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton, explaining how the subjective nature of the Volcker Rule itself as written in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act only complicates matters.
For the full piece see "Banks, Lawyers Struggling to Evaluate Final Volcker Rule" (may require subscription).