It is a well-known fact that nowadays every single thing in every single area is under control. Indeed, governments want to master everything and put as much limits as they can to avoid crisis. Yet, it cannot be denied that among the sectors “affected” by regulation, the area of banking is one of the most important. In an original speech pronounced in August 2012, Andrew Haldane, the director of the Bank of England denounced a too much complicated regulation in banking. If Haldane admits that the regulation is inevitable, it remains that a complex regulation is sometimes useless. Haldane’s speech entitled “The dog and the frisbee” has been discussed in an article in The Economist of the 8th September 2012.
What are positive and negative …show more content…

Haldane explains why Basel II was a failure and how the act caused the financial crisis of 2007. “The result, as the world headed into 2007, was that banks’ balance-sheets were much riskier than they appeared.” Basel III, published in December 2010 is an amelioration of Basel II; it’s part of the initiatives to strengthen the financial system in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis (“subprime” crisis) under the leadership of the FSB (Financial Stability Board) and G20. Basel III purposes are basically to make banks totalling 7% of their risk-bearing assets and to reduce the sizes of banks. Is Basel III the good solution to have a stable system? The article says “The regulators behind the Basel rules have tended to think a leverage ratio is too unsophisticated.” What is the ideal size for a bank? Finally we can discuss Dodd-Frank act of 2010 which is used in the United States. The Act is comprised of sixteen titles, which aim to: "promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes". Its implementation will require the