But..., I don't think people really understand what this means. One thing it means is larger corporations. The first thing that happens when a market regulates is usually "consolidation." Capital markets reward larger companies, when regulation starts. The larger, older companies tend to be preferred by regulators.
The large companies are then "safe" as the regulation slows disruptive forces.
A second thing that happens is bureaucracy. The bank replies to this guys with a generic "not our fault, regulators made us do it." This can be random, as "compliance" people gain power internally and start making decisions on a purely bureaucratic basis, without thinking about outcomes. Sometimes it's strategic. Smart lawyers interpret some parts in a dumb-literal way, because it allows them to do something they want to do while blaming the regulator. The same lawyers can creatively interpret some other clauses, allowing them to bypass/ignore some major part of the regulation, sometimes the whole point of the regulation. It's almost impossible to know which is happening.
David Graeber (provocateur and anarchist anthropologist) had a good bit on this. Basically the bank explains their own inexplicable bureaucracy by saying it's the regulator's bureaucracy, avoiding responsibility.
I'm not suggesting that banks should be a unregulated, just that quality matters. Quality is inadequate, currently. So much so that it's hard to predict what effects the introduction of a regulatory authority will have. Its a crapshoot.