For those subject to the plethora of requirements inspired by the desire to prevent a similar melt down as took place seven years ago, the reality of the sheer volume never ceases to amaze and the acronyms are endless. It is not just the industry which is overwhelmed by these new requirements and their associated costs, so are their regulators. Yet, no one in the financial services regulatory environment has the courage to say “enough!” for fear of being cast as reactionary, self-interested or, in the case of the banks, too tainted by scandal and guilt.
International financial centres (IFCs) now lead many of their larger competitors in adherence to international standards, compliance with information disclosure obligations and discouragement of their use for tax evasion and other criminal activities. These have been independently tested and found fit for purpose. Yet, their perception in the media and with the external public remains poor. Marcus Killick contemplates whether this was it a battle that could ever have been won. He draws on 22 years of involvement in regulatory supervision of IFCs and draws parallels between the defence of IFCs and the fox hunting debate in the UK: fox hunting with dogs provided a necessary service, it was economically useful. If one accepts the necessity of the end result, namely the control of the fox population, then it was one of the least unpleasant ways of accomplishing this. Yet, in the UK it is banned, with crueller and less effective methods of control replacing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment