3 ms·

> So you train for many years and acquire knowledge of a particular area and then what? You can't actually make money from the skill you learned? Sure you can.

by qubax 8y ago

> So you train for many years and acquire knowledge of a particular area and then what? You can't actually make money from the skill you learned? Sure you can. But you shouldn't be regulating the companies you hope to work for. If these people were angling to get cushy jobs for large banks, don't you think there is a conflict of interest there? And if you were large banks, wouldn't you tell these regulators you'd love to hire them for their "expertise" so that you get preferential treatment? If you think these people were hired for their "expertise", that's naive. It's rewarding regulators for working for the banks interests and it's a signal to future regulators that they also will be taken care of if they "do the right thing". Think about it. If you were going to regulate facebook, do you think it is smart to stack the regulatory board with people who want to work for facebook after the regulation is created? Don't you think that's a conflict of interest?

tikkabhuna 8y ago
If banks were leaning on current regulatory employees whilst they were still employeed, that sounds like bribery and should be already covered by existing laws. Remember that there are many banks and that all regulation covers them (although certain bits focus will hit them in different ways). Also, regulation goes out for review before it gets passed. If a certain bank was pushing for regulation to specifically benefit them, others would raise it. I know of people who worked at the European Securities regulator. Some were seconded from PwC/EY/etc because they get knowledge share. Regulators can learn from people in industry, those in industry learn about the "spirit of the law". With the recent MiFID 2 regulation in Europe, areas were left vague so that the regulators could expand the definition based on whether they thought it was needed. European financial regulators have moved towards principles[1], over rules, so that they are not constrained when a firm does something that breaches the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law. [1] https://www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulation https://www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulation

by qubax 8y ago

tikkabhuna 8y ago

If banks were leaning on current regulatory employees whilst they were still employeed, that sounds like bribery and should be already covered by existing laws. Remember that there are many banks and that all regulation covers them (although certain bits focus will hit them in different ways). Also, regulation goes out for review before it gets passed. If a certain bank was pushing for regulation to specifically benefit them, others would raise it. I know of people who worked at the European Securities regulator. Some were seconded from PwC/EY/etc because they get knowledge share. Regulators can learn from people in industry, those in industry learn about the "spirit of the law". With the recent MiFID 2 regulation in Europe, areas were left vague so that the regulators could expand the definition based on whether they thought it was needed. European financial regulators have moved towards principles[1], over rules, so that they are not constrained when a firm does something that breaches the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law. [1] https://www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulation https://www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulation