Comments on: The regulatory fight moves from Washington to Basel A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: HBC Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:41:58 +0000 Correct me if I’m wrong, G-bahn, but it might be easier to regulate banks in a climate that won’t take “D’uh, not sure, but how about some more of that taxpayer money?” for a good answer from any banking conglomerate to the question of what they’ve been doing with funds entrusted to them.

It might be easier to regulate banks that aren’t viciously obstinate toward any sort of regulation, and it might be even easier still to get answers out of banks that weren’t outright bribing people who ought to be asking questions not to ask them.

In other words, you could say Obama’s job’s really a piece of cake, as long as you don’t ask where the cake’s coming from.

By: Gotthardbahn Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:16:32 +0000 ‘And there are still far too many bank regulators: the OTS goes away, but the OCC remains, along with the FDIC and the SEC and the NCUA and the Fed. It’s a recipe for inconsistency, confusion, regulatory arbitrage, and turf wars.’

Perhaps when Mr. Obama is enjoying dinner in Toronto this weekend with our Mr. Harper, he might ask how Canada manages to regulate its banking system with just one regulator – the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Canada has six or more quite large banks and a myriad of smaller, regional banks and trust companies, yet they all emerged largely unscathed from the recent financial crisis. ‘Just how did that happen?’ would be a good question for Mr. Obama to ask.