Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Regulatory desert

I have been meaning to write something on Jane Diplock's interview on Q&A, commented on by Adolf here.

This quote of Diplock got me thinking:
There are many, many factors that led to the finance company collapses, and the regulatory desert was one of them.

I think we certainly, looking back, could say we needed a better regulatory framework at the time.

Regulatory desert? Really?

In this country we have at our disposal as a regulatory framework in this area (inter alia):

  • Fair Trading Act, specifically sections 9 & 14 concerning misleading and deceptive conduct.
  • Contractual Remedies Act, particularly sections 6-10 regarding misrepresentation and breach/cancellation.
  • Companies Act, specifically sections 131-138 concerning directors duties, including reckless trading and director's duty of care.
  • Securities Act, which includes a myriad of provisions regarding prospectus and statements made in them.
  • The criminal law/police, which includes fraud, theft by appropriation and other ancillary offences.
  • The Serious Fraud Office (see above).
  • Standard and Poors ratings on said finance companies.
  • Auditors and their reports on said companies.
  • Common law torts including deception, negligence and negligent misstatement.

There are more - feel free to add them in the comments.

The best way to finish this post is with this comment from Brent Sheather:

The answer to this problem is not regulation. It needs to be driven by the investing public - demanding realistic annual fees from their advisers and threatening to leave the money in the bank as per Warren Buffett's good advice of April 2004.


2 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Started off well, farted before finishing.

What a lame brained comment by Sheather. Just think about it for for more than five seconds.

Gooner said...

I have thought about it. The answer is not regulation.