Without getting into the details...About 80% of my work time in finance last year was to do regulatory/compliance work, which paid $0. As of 5 days ago I am out of that line of work.

The DOL rule they are talking about was total malarkey. After decades of being told not to churn their clients the recent DOL ruling reversed that, actually encouraging churning on retirement accounts while simultaneously making it just about impossible for advisors to serve smaller investors. I'm glad that Trump is going after that. Meanwhile - please notice the regulations under Obama that were trying to force the lower working class into mandatory retirement accounts that invested in government securities.

Anymore, I'm out. I'll be my own advisor. It pays more.

What took so long?

The only regulation I want on the banking industry (or any industry) is accomplished via unencumbered Capitalism.

The Washington Post is best used for a new puppy that isn't potty trained.

Well, now I'm really confused. One of the opposition's claims against Hillary was that she was in league with Wall Sreet and would sell us out. Now it seems Trump is doing the selling. I think there ought to be a wall between the money that we savers deposit for our retirement and the
money investment bankers speculate with. If they are successful, they keep the profits and if they lose, we tax payers bail them out. What's not for them to like? Some of the schemes the young hot-shots come up with are real flim-flams--a shell
game with NO pea! I don't give a crap how much paper work they have to go through (creates jobs for humble office workers) so long as it protects MY nest egg. I simply do not trust big bank cartels to have MY interests at heart. I'll stick to the small local independent banks, or (a line from "Heat of the Night)"I'll keep my money under my mattress with my dog on it!"1

The Dodd-Frank act crippled small community banks (3,000+ out of business since), to the advantage of the big banks, who could absorb the increased overhead costs. Reinstating the Glass-Steagall division between investment and savings banks is the next step to be taken. Then we need to audit the Fed, preparatory to taking it out of commission.

I agree with the assessment of both the Washington Post, and the CF below! The CFR was the one who got our CD rates down to next to nothing, as the banks were given unlimited printed cash from the CFR, no longer needing our investments. It was the CFR and the Hillary camp who e-mailed thier "shared goal" of creating a socially unaware population. However, all teh red tape created withing the banks from this law, make it much more difficult to do bssness, even for non-profits. We have to also remember that the world banks and the neighborhood banks are not equally to blame for the horrors of banking. The whole mortgage thing started with the Community Reinvestment Act of Carer, and was forced down the throats of bankers by Obama's ACORN (now SEIU) troops.
Way back, however, the International bankers are responsible for the price of oil, going way back to when Saudi Arabia was started to get in the oild business, and the bankers set the price higher, then screwed them over.

I am failing to see how less regulations and government control will equal preying on customers? The regulations, as we all know (the good intentions), always result in the customer paying for them. With less competition (with regulations), cartels and monopolies are a natural result. Every country that has tight government regulation on banks has bank monopolies and rapes the customers. Are you advocating the same? (with good intentions, of course...)

The title above doesn't jive with one to the link. Why the bias?

Customers have always been free to not do business with banksters that treat them badly.