Talk:Financial regulation: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Nick Gardner m (Talk:Financial policy moved to Talk:Financial regulation) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
This is the skeleton of an article that I hope to flesh out when time permits (help would be welcome!). Some of it will inevitably need to be updated quite soon, as policy makers turn recommendations into action - as I trust they will. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | This is the skeleton of an article that I hope to flesh out when time permits (help would be welcome!). Some of it will inevitably need to be updated quite soon, as policy makers turn recommendations into action - as I trust they will. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
== New title and new structure == | |||
On returning to this article, I realised that it was a badly-structured mixture of micro- and macro-prudential proposals, so I have given it a new title and a new structure. In creating an article with the new structure, I intend to transfer to it most of the material of the previous structure (which I have given a temporary home in my sandbox) and add to it some new material that I have recently discovered. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:20, 15 January 2010
Background section
Added some minimal links and text. Some rearrangement is needed, because there was no easy place to put the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act yet not disrupt the 1980 to 2000 flow. It probably should be mentioned that Glass-Steagall was 1934.
Does Sarbanes-Oxley Act fit into regulation here, or is this specific to financial institutions? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I was trying to convey as background information was simply that the nature of banking changed after the 1980s, partly as a result of the deregulation. (The full story has been told elswhere and there seemed to be no point in repeating it here). The sentence about Glass-Steagal was only an example, and is not essential to the point. If it seems to be misleading to mention Glass-Steagal without mentioning Gramm-Leach-Bliley, then one solution is to delete that sentence. I will do so if you think I should. Alternatively, since Gramm-Leach-Bliley occurred after the 1980s, it could be inserted as part of the deregulation that preceded (and facilitated) the subprime and subsequent upheavals - but to do that would not help the reader to pick up the simple point that deregulation had helped to change the nature of banking.
- Is there any need to mention it at all? Nick Gardner 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have put Sarbanes-Oxley on the Addendum subpage and I plan to add a brief explanation as I have done elsewhere.Nick Gardner 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- For the time being, at least, I have compromised by putting Gramm-Leach-Bliley in a footnote.Nick Gardner 07:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Skeleton version
This is the skeleton of an article that I hope to flesh out when time permits (help would be welcome!). Some of it will inevitably need to be updated quite soon, as policy makers turn recommendations into action - as I trust they will. Nick Gardner 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
New title and new structure
On returning to this article, I realised that it was a badly-structured mixture of micro- and macro-prudential proposals, so I have given it a new title and a new structure. In creating an article with the new structure, I intend to transfer to it most of the material of the previous structure (which I have given a temporary home in my sandbox) and add to it some new material that I have recently discovered. Nick Gardner 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)