Gretchen Morgenson cites two views on the newly approved Volcker Rule in December 2013. Prof. Richard Sylla of New York University sees the rule as going part way in the direction of the Glass-Steagall Act, which gave the financial markets five or six decades of financial stability. Just the fact that the rule is on the books should give the bank officers pause before engaging in questionable financial activities, is his view. Prof. David Skeel of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, believes only aggressive enforcement can make the law work because of the way it is written. He says regulators have fallen short in enforcement in the past and have not been held accountable. Only by making regulators accountable, including penalties for regulators failing to do their job, would this work says Skeel. By not imposing penalties for regulatory failures in the last crisis there is more likelihood for this sort of behaviour to continue. Instead the same regulators are now given greater powers after an earlier failure. Considering the Skeel view, the importance of the attestation- that is now required from bank senior executives that the Volcker Rule's provisions are being followed- take on an important role in ensuring enforcement. This also coincides with Mr. Volcker's view that the bank officers should have to take on the responsibility for making sure that they are doing it the right way....