Talk:Financial regulation

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)

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)