The recommendation that advisers be required to hire third party examiners needs far more consideration. To whom would these examiners be responsible: the government or the adviser? Who would reward these examiners for finding problems? What is the relationship between the examiners and the adviser's CCO?

There could not be a more obvious example of regulation by enforcement. Rather than telling banks what the enforcement "risks" are, the regulators should tell banks what the rules are. If there are no rules, the FDIC should propose them.

Ultimately, Mr. Hsu's approach would kill innovation. One can say "innovate responsibly," and it sounds good, but it is not meaningful unless there are real actions that one can take to achieve that end.

It is true that AI currently leads to unpredictable results and the creators do not fully understand why the programs reach certain conclusions. That said, if their use is prohibited until those issues are solved (assuming they can ever be solved), the problems won't be solved because…

The alarming development of malicious services such as should make clear the imprudence of the SEC's proposal to force mandatory central clearing of U.S. governments (both cash market and repo). How can anyone be confident that the FICC will be able to defend itself against cyber attacks when so many firms and governmental entities have been victimized?  A mandated conduit through which government securities must flow presents a compelling target for malicious actors using increasingly…