Lots of stuff in the blatts about the unique advantages of the "deregulated", "open" even, ye gods and bum pills, "free" financial markets of the USA, and how they represent a crucial advantage of that great nation in coping with trouble. I don't propose to get into arguments about whether American markets are better than anyone else's, because there's a fact of the matter; when it comes to markets, bigger is better, and American markets are the biggest, so they're the best. But if there's a big boat full of gravy out there for anyone with a free and deregulated financial sector, then speaking for my European brethren, I gotta get me some of that. With this in mind, D-Squared Digest would like to put forward the following urgent four-point Deregulatory Plan to bring us into line with the land of the free:
- In order to help us come into line with "US equity markets, the freest in the world", Europe should immediately impose numerous restrictions on short selling (such as the NYSE uptick rule), require that derivatives be traded on different exchanges from the underlying and introduce "circuit breakers" halting trading if the market falls too far.
- In order to reduce "European governments' use of the banking system to help promote social goals", Europe should immediately abandon its strategy of using state-owned subsidised banks, and should instead pass an equivalent of the Community Reinvestment Act, regulating and pre-empting private companies' decisions about who they want to lend to.
- In order to ensure that we no longer have to suffer "failing companies propped up because of their political importance", Europe should immediately fall into line with the USA by removing the State Aids directive which forbids government bailouts and change its bankruptcy code to make it as easy for insolvent debtors to continue trading as it is under Chapter 11.
- In order to reduce "the plethora of red tape which stifles innovation", all European states should immediately establish three different types of bank, each with a different regulator, along the lines of the OCC, Fed and the individual state banking commissions, and no very obvious way for anyone to tell which type of bank is which. Securities and derivatives regulators will have to be split in each country, and the Banking Co-ordination Directive which allows an institution chartered in one Member State to do business across the EU will need to be repealed. Foreign banks will obviously need to be subjected to yet a further entirely different system of regulation.
Only in this way can the backward, stagnant and sclerotic regulatory systems of Europe approach the model of clarity and nonintervention with which the US provides us. Perhaps one day, European financial institutions will be able to employ as few compliance officers and lawyers as their American counterparts!
- (thread id="81716766")
ReplyDelete- (comment)
(datetime)Tuesday 2002-09-17 22:27:35(/datetime)
(name)ChrisK(/name)
(email)christophe dot kotowski at gmx dot net(/email)
(uri /)
(It's strange that this "reversed" regulatory level is exactly what I experienced in my previous profession. I used to work in the wine trade in Germany. EU regulations are simple and transparent and have blown away countless national red tape (in fact it's only the remains of those that are problematic, especially duty and taxation). Importing a small quantity of wine from any EU member state doesn't require more than filling one form - it's marginally more complex than the order itself. On the other side, the Californian winery I worked closely with had to face a fragmented US national market replete with state legislations designed to protect local traders. Much more legal knowledge and paperwork were needed than in the EU. Ever since then, I do not believe in the Brussels-is-a-bureaucratic-mammoth myth until proven otherwise.(/
========
- (comment)
(datetime)Tuesday 2002-09-17 23:31:46(/datetime)
(name)jda(/name)
(email)jdayer[at]ucdavis[.]edu(/email)
(uri /)
(Re Chapter 11, D^2 may be a bit behind the times. Chapter 11 has many crimes to answer for but lately it has become a device for pereserving going concern values for senior lenders. Equity owners hardly have a place at the table nor, indeed, do unsecured creditors.(/
========
- (comment)
(datetime)Wednesday 2002-09-18 07:12:24(/datetime)
(name)dsquared(/name)
(email /)
(uri /)
(I disagree with the above; Ch 11 is in general a means by which holders of long-dated claims prevent holders of short-dated claims from liquidating. It props up a lot of companies which, if they had been in Europe, people would say they were dead ducks.(/