Comments 3

金融监管，八仙过海

Feb 22, 2013 Howard Davies

巴黎—在金融危机的早期阶段，一个流行的观点是美国监管系统需要从根本上进行结构修正。证券交易委员会（SEC）和商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）态度的不同阻碍了对投资银行和衍生品交易的有效监督（只有美国相信分开监管证券和衍生品是有意义的）。

事实上，银行监管过于细分给寻找放纵使用资本的银行造就了制度套利的机会。类似地，联邦保险监管者的缺位使AIG归储蓄管理局（Office of Thrift Supervision，OTS）和纽约州保险局（New York State Insurance Department）监管，这一安排显然是不到位的。

这些观点并没有起到什么效果。多德-弗兰克法案确实成功地解除了OTS的忧虑，但眼红的各个国会监督委员会成功阻止了SEC和CFTC的合并，银行监督合理化也没有任何进展。因此，美国的制度与对21世纪初造成致命危局的集体视而不见并没有什么区别。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 3 in all 3 Comments on this article

James Daniel Paul May 30, 2013

Stage 1: Industrial revolution thro wars
Stage 2: Multilateral Organisations
Stage 3: Economic Reforms for market Economy and privatisation
Stage 4 FTAs
Stage 5 Regional Lenders
Stage 6 Company regulators
Stage 7: Banking regulator
Stage 8 Stock market Regulator
Stage 9 Insurance and social security regulator
Stage 10 Interventions in the debt market
Stage 11 Interventions in the forex marekts
Stage 12 Commodity market Regulators

from Government to Market to Regulation !! interesting evolution of the market in India
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Lam Mar 2, 2013

Gamesmith94134: Financial Regulators’ Global Variety Show

I would appreciate Mr. Howard Davies giving insights on the financial; and it reminded me the early days when I learned economics. It brought back memories.

There is no difference on the OTS or FSA, they are Names and they repeated the history of the Lloyds of London; and how do you compare ICE and CFTC to Mr. Murray Lawrence? It is all displays by the same taxidermists as those regulators agreed on the rules to securities and derivatives on the separated grounds; albeit, compartmentalization or internalized as you will. It is upgraded to “recruit to dilute”.

“at first instance the judge described the Names as "the innocent victims [...] of staggering incompetence" and at appeal the Court found that representations that Lloyd's had a rigorous auditing system were false ([item 376 of the judgment:] [...] the answer to the question [...] whether there was in existence a rigorous system of auditing which involved the making of a reasonable estimate of outstanding liabilities, including unknown and unnoted losses, is no. Moreover, the answer would be no even if the word 'rigorous' were removed.)”

I would not doubt if many more financials would fall through the gaps of the “twin Peak”; they will collapse like Barings. It is because compartmentalization or internalization are molding the individual system to comply and ligation break the rules of its only since only one to make its rule. However, I would prefer the gentlemen’s agreement than under the law, it is the common sense that bonds underwriters, regulators and investors together, and they compromise. Perhaps, I am kind of nostalgic that we can return to the old days that the Names must be changed…….and the attitude on profits and responsibilities should be shared among the Names; If only God will, not even the G20.

It is time for the emerging market nations and developed nations to commit themselves not to “recruit to dilute” or give a definition of the unlimited and limited liabilities; because we all learned by now that debtor and creditors are interchanged positions financially----we are all liable to other.

“Twin Peaks” is just another hump on the same camel.

May the Buddha bless you?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Feb 23, 2013

Howard Davies writes an excellent summary on the nuances of regulatory overhaul in the finance sector that many countries have gone through in recent times; in all its uniqueness that each country had attempted to reconfigure the regulatory role, we have actually more of the same as the result. The steep increase of financialization did not leave as a rich dividend the increase in output per worker as a share of employment in finance as the BIS paper 69 has shown that “if output per worker is plotted against the share of employment in finance, there emerges a point where both financial development and financial system’s size turn from good to bad beyond a point (that point lies at 3.2% for the fraction of employment and 6.5% for the fraction of value added in finance). Based on 2008 data, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland were all beyond the threshold for employment (4.1%, 5.7%, 3.5% and 4.5%, respectively). And the United States and Ireland were also beyond the threshold for value added (7.7% and 10.4%, respectively)”.

This apparent dysfunctional arrangement had raised the doubt that financial markets instead of propounding systemic stability, consumer protection and risk mitigation practices to benefit large sections of people may have actually not served the lofty goals of bringing financial service access to greater majority of people, who go through the pains of adjustment more than the larger institutions; in providing the balance between serving
those sections who have less knowledge of the products on offer that could advance credit and could be actually used judiciously through a mode of smoothening consumption (not excessive leverage), the larger focus had shifted to misallocation of resources to housing and consumer credit at an alarming rate which is not sustainable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/2i3F9Zr/zh;

金融监管，八仙过海

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Europe’s Power Deficit

The Looming Taiwan Crisis

What Next for Venezuela?

Taking Vaccines the Last Mile

The Road From Thatcherism

A Very Greek Brexit?

Science and Subterfuge in Economics

What Will Succeed GDP?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register