Editor's Letter
As Credit went to press, the financial press was abuzz, yet again, with the question of regulation. Timothy Geithner, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, is the latest to enter the fray, insisting in a speech to the Economic Club of New York that "globally active" financial institutions must operate within a single framework providing "stronger consolidated supervision, with appropriate requirements for capital and liquidity".
Clearly some kind of regulatory change is required in the light of the turmoil in credit. This is especially evident in the UK given the debacle resulting from the tripartite regulatory system's failure to contain Northern Rock, and Geithner - whose awareness of the need for central banks to act decisively is matched by his concern about moral hazard - is well placed to suggest what forms it might take. Yet reform in the wake of obvious failings, however necessary, will not equip regulators to prevent, or even predict, the next crisis in the financial system.
No-one I've spoken to has ever suggested that regulators can ever be anything other than one step - at least - behind the markets. This is due to the nature of the system: bankers are, often, paid to innovate, while regulators are there to ensure they do so fairly. It's also a question of personnel: for example, many senior market participants believe some enhanced oversight of the rating agencies is desirable, but who would suggest that anyone at a regulator is capable of suggesting even the most basic methodology changes?
Tim Geithner's views are essential, but we need to hear more from the banks and their clients about how they want the rules of engagement to change in the wake of nearly a year of turmoil.
Unless they are more vocal, the initiative will remain with the regulators.
Matthew Attwood.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Are regulators wrong to think of AT1s as debt?
Bank capital bonds face criticism. One answer might be to treat them as ‘fixed-income equity’
SEC streamlines overhaul of stock trading rules
Tick size and access fee rules simplified from first draft, but Peirce still questions rationale
Supervisors use generative AI to tame ‘chaotic’ data
Officials merge credit databases with unstructured reports to sharpen bank oversight, explains Banco de España ex-deputy
EU banks fear loss of NSFR repo relief
European Commission must decide by next June; other jurisdictions adopted softer calibration
Running the numbers on Barr’s Basel III endgame revisions
Fed vice-chair’s plan to ease capital requirements for big banks still lacks critical details
Endgame manoeuvre: US banks put SLR reform back in spotlight
Plan to ease Basel III brings renewed focus to impact of leverage ratio on US Treasury market
Regulators want to fix AT1s. Investors want restraint
Tweaking the instrument that regulators love to hate may be the only way to prevent its abolition
More disclosure touted to temper pre-hedging ills
Transparency could help investors choose a dealer, but will they use the disclosures?