Talk:Financial regulation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Background section: new section) |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Does [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] fit into regulation here, or is this specific to financial institutions? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | Does [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] fit into regulation here, or is this specific to financial institutions? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|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? [[User:Nick Gardner|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.[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:10, 5 December 2009
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)