Opponents of Dodd-Frank argue that many elements of the law are unwieldy. Some of the most respected financiers in the banking industry have been critical of the legislation, including Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan, and a member of Trump’s economic advisory team, who said earlier this year that “over-regulation has been holding back growth, and big data will prove it one day”.

The law imposed sweeping regulation on Wall Street, including the so-called Volcker rule, which stops banks from proprietary trading, and stricter oversight of the lenders deemed to be systemically important. But while many bankers have worries about Dodd-Frank, most agree with the law’s general principles and few would like to see it dismantled altogether.

The head of regulatory policy at one of the world’s leading banks said: “Globally, the regulatory architecture has changed since 2008 and I don’t think anyone would argue it didn’t need to. If you really tore up everything that’s in Dodd-Frank, the US would be out of kilter with what the rest of the G20 has implemented around derivative markets.”

What is needed, he says, is a rethink – or “calibration” – of the way that some elements of Dodd-Frank are implemented. The Volcker rule, which essentially prohibits banks from speculatively trading their own funds for profits, is one such area. Jason Goldberg, a New York-based banks analyst at Barclays, says: “Should banks not be in true proprietary trading? I don’t think many have a problem with that. I think the issue with the Volcker Rule is, banks have to report numerous different metrics to five different agencies. Wouldn’t it be easier if only one agency was in charge of overseeing it?