It would be better if the relevant law was simply repealed. The notion that a group of regulators may decide to regulate a previously unregulated institution as if it were a bank or bank holding company is wholly nonsensical. Banking regulation is designed for banks. Slapping bank regulation on an entity that is not a bank makes about as much sense as slapping airline regulation on a trucking company.  

This is to say nothing of the fact that the power given the various…

The D.C. Circuit opinion stretches to reach a result that seems wholly inconsistent with common sense. The dissenting opinion is compelling. (See also, .) 

To reiterate Mr. Atkins' remarks, there is simply no ethical justification for the level of fines that the SEC imposed on broker-dealers for recordkeeping failures that were not connected to any injury to customers or to a conscious attempt to hide information from the regulators. The fines were simply a raw exercise of power, which also allowed the SEC to boast in the press as to its prowess in collecting fines.

This is not just a bank issue. It is a US government issue. If US capital regulations applicable to banks make it unduly expensive for banks to hold positions in US governments, or to finance customer positions in US governments, that makes it more expensive to transact in US governments. In turn, that means that the US government must pay a higher interest rate to induce investors to hold its securities, which drives up the cost of financing the US government's very substantial debt. …