Bank regulation and the future of banking

My take

Good bank regulation is mostly invisible. When it works, nobody notices, and the cost of weakening it only shows once something has failed. That's why indiscriminate cuts to regulators worry me. They erode public faith in the banking system and open gaps for problems to slip through. I also see supervision as a question of competition, not just compliance. Chaotic or heavy-handed rules tend to favour the biggest banks. When smaller lenders lose their fintech partners or carry costs they can't bear, customers drift towards a handful of institutions that are too big to fail. I want policy that lets community and regional banks compete. Consumer protection matters too, but blunt tools, like a sudden cap on credit card rates, risk cutting off the borrowers they're meant to help.

Why I see it this way

I've seen regulation from more than one side. I sat on the boards of Kazakhstan's central bank and its financial markets regulator, and I was in government in 2008, when the supervisory system was tested in real time. I have worked closely with US community and regional banks throughout my career, so I see how decisions made in Washington land on smaller institutions and their customers. That mix has left me with one firm view. Strong, stable oversight is what lets a banking system earn trust, and competition is what keeps it working for ordinary people.

What I'm watching

I'm watching whether the push to shrink federal agencies leaves lasting gaps in oversight. I'm watching whether community banks keep the fintech partnerships they need, and whether consolidation among smaller US banks makes them stronger or simply hands more ground to the giants. And I'm watching AI move into banking, and whether anyone builds the oversight needed to keep customers' trust.