Risk of over-regulation in crisis
There is a risk of over-regulation in responding to the financial crisis, according to one commentator, and the risk is particularly high in the US with its history of "reactive over-regulation".
Regulation is not a panacea, said Dr John Stuckey, senior adviser at McKinsey & Company and chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), at a dinner for the ASIC summer school in Sydney last night.
While acknowledging the need to amend regulations, Stuckey rejected the notion that regulation is a remedy to the current financial situation, saying that we can largely rely on the markets to fix themselves.
Leading a panel discussion on "lessons from the boardroom", he argued that the "goal of regulation is to make markets work better, not kill or stop them".
He added that regulation should help create more standardised products and to inform buyers and sellers in the markets.
"We should, principally, rely on the markets," he said when considering how to address the financial situation. He said markets have responded well to the crisis — discounting equities — noting also that few Australian companies have "gone bust".
Stuckey referred to the "boom businesses" of the past five years, namely hedge funds and private equity, both of which have seen ordinary performance in recent times. He said both are "legitimate and valuable" but they have fallen over.
Stuckey praised the commercial banking sector in Australia, pointing to solid regulation on the part of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the decent performance of banks.
He predicted that with the pull-back of foreign banks and recent mergers, Australia will have the "cosiest commercial banking set-up" it has had in a while.
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
