Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Will The US Adopt Principle-Based Regulation?
You expect to hear about "regime harmonization with Europe" when the subject is something that Europe has a lot of and the US has none of – carbon trading, for example. But today we heard it from Michael Oxley, on the subject of something the US has a lot of and Europe has much less of: capital-markets regulation.
Capital markets are subject to globalization just like the steel industry in his home state of Ohio, said Oxley today – and that means that the well-established American way of doing things just might have to change. "I predict that you will see, for the first time, probably, American regulators moving towards a principles-based approach," said Oxley, who's now vice chairman of Nasdaq.
Harvard's Hal Scott, a lawyer, wondered whether such a move might be harder on this side of the pond. "If the FSA promulgates a rule, they interpret it as well," said Scott of the UK regulator. "Whereas if the SEC promulgates a rule, it's the court who interprets it."
Scott answered his own question, however, by quoting Sam DiPiazza, the CEO of PriceWaterhouse, who says he prefers principles to rules, even in court.The reason has everything to do with the thicket of regulations which presently encumbers anybody working in the capital markets: any given action is subject to any number of rules, and that means that an auditor or any other market participant can be accused of not following rule 6 even if he followed rule 1. On the other hand, if he can more simply say "I followed the principle," that would help him even if he had to do so in front of a judge rather than a regulator.
In general, a principles-based approach has regulators which, when faced with a problem, seek to solve it. A rules-based approach, on the other hand, has regulators which, when faced with a problem, seek to punish it. I definitely get the impression that the SEC often doesn't think it's solved a problem unless there's a settlement involved. A move away from that attitude and towards something more constructive would certainly start helping mitigate fear of the US regulatory system.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





