This piece represents the opinion of Zillow Group Chief Analytics Officer and Chief Economist Dr. Stan Humphries.

My colleagues at Zillow and I created the Zestimate in 2006 just as the housing market was inflating into a bubble. Millions of estimated home values became a lens through which to watch the crash and subsequent recovery.

Using that data, Zillow first reported from the rubble of the housing market bust that U.S. homeowners were underwater by more than a trillion dollars, and almost a third of homeowners with a mortgage owed more on their loans than their homes were worth.

In those early days, policymakers knew something horrible was happening and, even if they didn’t fully understand all the causes of the crisis, there was a fundamental sense that lack of oversight was a central culprit. As a result, and not wanting to squander the urgency that comes in the aftermath of a crisis, Congress, in 2010, enacted a broad swath of regulations called the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

“Here,” the legislation effectively said, “One of these 100 things ought to fix it.”

Today, home values have almost completely recovered since the housing bust. Homeowners have regained most of the value they lost and only about one in 10 homeowners with a mortgage was in negative equity at the end of 2016.

I get that in the post-crisis policy frenzy of drafting Dodd-Frank, we threw a bunch of ideas against a wall to see what would stick. But now, with the benefit of hindsight, we have an opportunity tweak it. I’m hopeful that, in doing so, we can find ways to achieve our objectives with less regulation and that this effort won’t open Pandora’s Box by allowing the elimination of important safeguards. Because while I think improvements can be made to Dodd-Frank, it is irresponsible to assume that if we scrap it all, the same thing won’t happen again.

Several of the changes in the leading Republican proposal to reform Dodd-Frank encourage more capital, less leverage, and less consolidation of assets within the banking sector. I support allowing financial institutions to escape many Dodd-Frank regulations if they choose to keep capital in reserve against future potential losses, an element of the Financial Choice Act promoted by U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. Hensarling’s approach would also provide some regulatory relief for smaller community banks and allow mortgages made by banks using their own capital to have the same lender legal protections as “qualified mortgages” that are sold into the secondary market.

But the proposed law goes too far in rolling back the separation of speculative trading activities from traditional banking contained in Dodd-Frank.  I’m also dubious that a repeal of the “fiduciary rule” is pro-consumer since it seems like a pretty good idea that retirement investment advisors should be required to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Ideally, the Trump administration’s vision for reforming Dodd-Frank would be big enough to include completing the unfinished business of Fannie and Freddie. The government is still significantly too involved in the U.S. mortgage market – an odd fact for one of the most capitalist countries in the world.

With the housing crisis in the rear-view mirror for most Americans, it’s time for government to take a clear-eyed look at a set of regulations that really protect consumers from another housing recession.