<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - Volcker Rule dramatics continue</title>
	<description>The Volcker rule intended to be help protect banks from future failure is being torn between critics who think it will gut the US corporate bond market and Congressmen who think it still contains too many loopholes.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=12506675</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:18:46 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:18:46 +1100</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Richard W. Painter  ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>I am one of the two University of Minnesota professors you mention. And personal liability for firm debts is not a radical proposal, rather a return to the way investment banking was practiced in the day when Lehman Brothers and its cohorts were both solvent and respected. I am a Republican and I served in the White House Counsel's office under President Bush. Public concern about the present state of banking goes well beyond the Occupy Wall Street movement.<br>Richard Painter</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Richard W. Painter  ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:18:46 +1100</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>