Recent editorials on the S&L mess {May 30 and June 1} dismiss a sensible corrective action. The Post calls for reregulation and forcing S&Ls to become banks or go out of business. This, in effect, is happening. Stiffer capital requirements, in particular, undoubtedly are necessary.

But it is not just an S&L problem. Commercial banks have been failing at an alarming rate too, and there is well-justified concern about the billions in obligations for government-sponsored enterprises. There is no reason to assume that financial markets will be calmed by a new army of regulators, no matter how well intentioned, as long as the system itself continues to invite abuse.

Of course, we cannot abolish federal deposit insurance. It is too late to repeal the very ill-conceived move in 1980 to more than double the risk-free coverage to $100,000 per deposit. But why is a less than 100 percent guarantee so "radical and flat wrong"? Why shouldn't depositors find out something about their banks, just as they do about insurance companies, money market funds, automobiles, major appliances and many other significant financial investments?

Soundly managed banks would leap to provide the public the type of basic information relating to their financial health. The Post says this would stir rumors and runs on banks, but the real bulwark against panics is not deposit insurance but the Federal Reserve System's willingness to provide liquidity to the banking system. There is no reason why a slightly less than 100 percent guarantee -- say 95 percent -- should cause significant instability.

The public is entitled to a sounder financial system, but one with correctly functioning market signals will work a lot better and save the taxpayers a lot more future dollars than relying exclusively on re-regulation. EDWARD A. SPRAGUE Gaithersburg

The June 9 editorial ''To Prevent More S&L Scandals,'' in which The Post says that ''it's time, first of all, to abolish S&Ls,'' is based on false premises and is in error.

What The Post doesn't recognize is that the thrift industry consists of two different types of institutions -- some 1,440 mutually-owned, and 1,095 stockholder-owned.

The mutual thrifts are locally owned and managed, community-oriented institutions and, for more than 150 years, have been the foundation of the thrift industry.

Most of the problems and scandals in the thrift industry emanated from recently converted capital stock, publicly-held institutions and mostly in a few states; i.e., California and Texas. They engaged in rampant stock speculation, wheeling and dealing and the imprudent investment of deposit funds, which have dominated the headlines.

Mutual savings institutions have made this a nation of homeowners. They are the nation's primary home mortgage lenders. Commercial banks enter the home mortgage market only when interest rates are high; thrifts are in this market through all economic cycles. Approximately 75 percent of the thrift industry is in the black.

We think that T. Timothy Ryan and the Office of Thrift Supervision should be given the chance to stabilize the thrift industry. If thrift institutions are abolished, as The Post advocates, they would have to be recreated. There is every evidence that the demise of the thrift industry would further curtail homeownership.

Finally, The Post should think twice before trying to deny the citizenry the benefits they receive from their local mutual thrift institutions.

ROBERT W. WILLIAMS Chairman of the Board, Council of Mutual Savings Institutions New York