If we get that right, the need for the States to write additional regulations, in my view, becomes much less.

This creates a floor, and it creates a floor.

What I have suggested is an agency that offers plain vanilla products that provide a safe harbor on regulation.

There was no reason to develop a business model that put tricks and traps in back and you pretended to compete on things that were not real.

What I really think is that it is time to talk about disclosure in a way that means something.

regulation must shift in the financial services area from who issued it to what the product is.

Congressman, I can't understand this without seeing what the paperwork is that accompanies them and what the disclosure is that is given to the consumer.

I am tired of it, too.

We are trying to say that more legal mandates of ineffective disclosure is not helping the consumer.

If one offered a very gentle stress test and the consequence were that the stock market responded positively to the good news that emerged from that, surely you wouldn't say that that changed any underlying reality.

In order to be more transparent, in order to have greater accountability for these banks, why not run the stress tests again under more difficult circumstances?