Everyone wants to be liked. Even banks. That’s one reason why a recent headline — Bank-Friendly Financial Reform – caught our eye.
It’s courtesy of Taking Note, the editorial page editor’s blog of The New York Times, and it leads a post that focuses on the cross-border application of derivatives regulations.
Truth be told, the piece is not very friendly to banks. (But you knew that.) It largely dismisses the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about the scope and timing of the US regulatory framework by numerous policymakers around the world. The list includes the EC Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, finance ministers in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland and the UK, and regulators and central bankers in Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Instead, it espouses the curious viewpoint that the administration is not resisting these concerns forcefully enough…and that it might be “saying just enough to shield the administration from charges that it has generally stood by while the banks watered down reform…”
Really? So that’s what’s been going on? Washington has been just going through the motions on derivatives reform?
The situation regarding the cross-border application of derivatives rules is important to understand:
• The G20 (which, of course, includes the US) initiated a global process of reform that was intended to create a level playing field among regulators and across jurisdictions. To achieve this, it’s important for all jurisdictions to remain aligned on the substance and timing of reform.
• European rules are expected to be as stringent and comprehensive as US rules. Within the US, the SEC is also drafting a strong ruleset. We expect that ISDA and market participants will continue to find plenty with which to disagree (and hopefully agree) on both counts.
• For one regulator to go it alone risks a number of adverse consequences: significant legal and operational uncertainty; duplicative or incompatible requirements that create undue costs or are impossible to implement; destabilizing markets by favoring firms/trades in some jurisdictions over others; undermining efforts to develop a long-term, stable regulatory environment that is crucial for strong markets and financial stability.
Much work remains to be done to finalize and implement the new regulatory framework in the US, Europe and other jurisdictions. International harmonization of these rules is vitally important to achieve the goals of greater financial stability and a more robust financial system – goals that everyone likes.