Why Our Capital Markets Aren't Competitive

The Paulson plan is nothing more than a hackneyed, trite and timeworn call for focus-group approved terms like "best practices" and theof all modern conservatives: "modern regulatory structure."
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

I read with sarcastic glee this story from the Wall Street Journal about Henry Paulson's push to make American capital markets more competitive globally. The Paulson plan is nothing more than a hackneyed, trite and timeworn call for focus-group approved terms like "best practices" and the sine qua non of all modern conservatives: "modern regulatory structure:"

"To maintain our capital markets' leadership, we need a modern regulatory structure complemented by market leaders embracing best practices."

For those of you not in the know, the term "best practices" means market participants should be self-policing. And a "modern regulatory structure" is code for none other than "let us gut all regulations, including Sarb-Ox."

Nowhere in the article or Paulson's plan is any recognition of the real cause for the decline in our capital markets competiveness: greed. As I posted about three weeks ago, the reason Wall Street is losing out on listings, M&A deals and all the other goodies of globalization has absolutely nothing to do with Sarb-Ox. Can anyone honestly tell me that the market regs coming out of Brussels are less stringent than Sarb-Ox? No, you can't. The bottom line here is that Goldman, Morgan, Merrill, Citi, Bear Stearns, etc. charge excessive fees and they are losing business because of it. Greed, plain and simple.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot