Interfering in financial markets to mandate a lower interest level seems generally a bad idea, but tying a mandatory reduction to a prohibition on lending less money makes it a doubly bad idea. If Senator Warren believes that banks are making improper profits on credit card lending, it would seem to follow that a forced reduction in rates would not cause banks to lend less. And if the Senator is forcing banks to take risk for which they are not compensated, isn't that bad for safety and…

One takeaway worth emphasizing is that clearing seems to lead to much greater market concentration, not only at the clearing house level, but also at the dealer level.  

It is an unfortunate reality that the political party in power largely determines the result of any study conducted by the government. Following the 2008 market crash, the Democratic majority leading the study of the market crash found that the crash had been largely caused by derivatives. If the Republicans had been in the majority, the study would have found that the crash was largely caused by mortgage lending. (See, e.g.,  (June 18, 2010)).

So one can reasonably guess…

The explicit denunciation by the SEC of the obligation to prevent investors from taking risks (and losing money) is significant. It is not the job of the SEC to prevent risk-taking; it is to assure that investors are provided material information through disclosure.

Effectively making all cryptocurrencies "illegal" under the Securities Laws, the SEC under the prior administration prevented the development of a disclosure system that could have enabled investors to make better…