Do we really need regulators who cannot define a purpose for their regulations?
Sir Simon Gleeson writes that the “hardest” is for the regulatory system is “deciding exactly what you are trying to achieve, “Regulatory systems do need regular pruning” December 28.
Gleeson is absolutely correct and if in need of evidence the current bank regulations produced by the Basel Committee, suffices. In these there is not one word on the purpose of the banks… because stability or better phrased the avoidance of excessive instability cannot of course per se be an objective but only a desired feature.
When having to embark on financial regulatory reform there is no better place to start than defining the purpose of the financial sector, but somehow it seems no one wants to do that… I wonder why?
Gleeson is absolutely correct and if in need of evidence the current bank regulations produced by the Basel Committee, suffices. In these there is not one word on the purpose of the banks… because stability or better phrased the avoidance of excessive instability cannot of course per se be an objective but only a desired feature.
When having to embark on financial regulatory reform there is no better place to start than defining the purpose of the financial sector, but somehow it seems no one wants to do that… I wonder why?
Posts
