Banking regulations cost more than they deliver
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1v91iPpuk
Where banks are concerned, regulatory responses are often commercially restricting, difficult to comply with, and ineffective in lowering commercial risk. They are commercially restricting to the extent that they curb the ability of banking houses to move out of recession and re-boot the economy. This is often done by shifting business towards high-risk products in the battle for survival.
With this increasing penchant for trenchant, in the long-term ineffective, regulatory responses to banking error, the taxpayer loses twice over: Firstly on bailout, and secondly through an increasing risk of unemployment.
It would be better for banks to crash and burn where they deserve to, and for governments not to get involved in second-guessing market risk, through unworkable regulation, for political gain.
Instead they would be better suited to improving the legal framework that eases the takeover of poorer-performing banks by their healthier counterparts.
Further, politicians ought to realise that the best way to protect the taxpayer is not to get involved in bailouts at all.