Un video dall'Economist e la riforma della regolamentazione finanziaria USA

Vi segnalo un video dell'Economist che descrive in modo sintetico e chiaro alcuni tratti
salienti dell'economia tedesca...



...e un articolo sul New York Times di oggi dedicato alla riforma Dodd: ecco alcune anticipazioni sui contenuti che vanno dalla riforma del voto societario alla costitu
zione di un'agenzia per l'analisi e la prevenzione del rischio sistemico.

...empower shareholders to have advisory votes on executive pay and to nominate directors for the boards of public companies through company proxy ballots (...)
The shareholder provisions, which have been vigorously opposed by many corporations and by Republicans, will be part of a bill that would amount to the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulations since the Depression. In one of the most fiercely debated provisions, the bill would create a consumer financial protection agency under the umbrella of the Federal Reserve, a move certain to disappoint liberal Democrats who believe the Fed failed to safeguard consumers in the years leading up to the banking meltdown. (...)

The consumer financial protection agency would have a director appointed by the president and the ability to write rules governing mortgages, credit cards, payday loans and a wide range of other financial products.

It would have some ability to ensure that the rules are followed; (...)

The Federal Reserve would see its bank supervision powers significantly diminished. It would continue to oversee bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in assets, and would be entrusted to regulate systemically important nonbank financial institutions. (...) 

Smaller bank holding companies, if they have a federal charter, would be overseen by a new regulator formed out of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which already oversees national banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which already oversees state-chartered banks that are not members of the Fed system, would gain oversight over those that are. (...)

The proposal would substantially alter the role of the Federal Reserve in protecting the economy, but the net effect would be a mixed outcome for the central bank.

On one hand, the Fed would be entrusted with oversight over all systemically important financial institutions, even if they are not banks.American International Group, the insurance giant that nearly brought down the financial system, was the most notorious example of such a company in the recent financial crisis. The Fed would also continue to oversee the nation’s largest bank holding companies — those with assets of $50 billion or more, or about 35 companies.

In addition, investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which converted to bank holding companies in 2008 to take advantage of the Fed’s liquidity programs, would not be able to go back to their earlier status to avoid Fed oversight.

On the other hand, the Fed would lose oversight over more than 4,900 bank holding companies with roughly $3 trillion in assets, and about 870 state-chartered banks that are members of the Fed system and have a total of $1.7 trillion in assets. (...)

The bill would also create a council to detect systemic risks to the financial system, and trigger, if necessary, a process to seize and dismantle a large financial firm on the verge of failure; the goal would be to limit the possibility of a broader meltdown and the need for a government bailout.

The risk council would be headed by the treasury secretary and include representatives of the Fed, the new consumer agency, the F.D.I.C., theSecurities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Housing Finance Agency — along with an official appointed to monitor the insurance industry, which is largely regulated by the states.

The bill would also impose comprehensive regulation of the sprawling market in over-the-counter derivatives. Standardized swaps and derivatives would have to be traded on exchanges or clearinghouses.