This seems a nice example of how the regulators might work with a private technology firm to reduce the regulatory risks of a product that on its face seems to provide a meaningful benefit to low income workers who would otherwise have to wait a couple of weeks for their paychecks. On the other hand, it could put a dent in , which would be a loss.

In the letter, the representatives state that "the rulemaking appears designed to force banks to ignore material risks posed by fossil energy companies . . . while providing them access to any banking product or service they want." Should banking regulators affirmatively discourage banks from providing financial services to the U.S. energy industry? Does that seem like an effective way to combat climate change?

Notably, the OCC's proposed rule is also disfavored by the banking…

No parties, but you can still dance.

This is a difficult issue. How can the government prevent holders of very liquid assets from dumping those assets during a market panic - other than by providing a governmental backstop? And if the government does provide a backstop, there is really no difference between a money market fund investing in private assets and a government securities fund, in that investors in both funds can look to the government as the ultimate obligor.

This is an issue that the incoming majority at the…