4 ms·
There's a difference between "letting" something happen and actively doing something – it shows very different intentions. The events of 2008 were also caused b
by sealeck 1y ago
There's a difference between "letting" something happen and actively doing something – it shows very different intentions. The events of 2008 were also caused by a cascading system failure involving lots of different components, which are hard for a single human to fully understand. The actions of the Indian regulator in the Adani case are much simpler, and their motivation is straightforward.
- dyauspitr 1y agoOne rotten regulator doesn’t mean you get to view the entire Indian regulatory environment as unreliable though. It’s the 4th/5th largest financial market in the world.
- Den_VR 1y agoIs SEBI not the key regulator in this area? To say it plainly, SEBI has been exposed for their selective enforcement on high-profile entities. If Jane Street’s in trouble with SEBI then it’s only because they failed to secure the same privileges as Adani, or Karvy, or Ramkrishna, or Sapre, or Kamath.
- fastball 1y agoDoes the size of a market have some positive impact on the reliability of its regulatory body that I am not aware of?
- dyauspitr 1y agoYes, trust. Fully gamed systems will not have large willing participants.
- fastball 1y agoA market being large doesn't mean it has large participants. But even then (and as seems to be the case in this instance), the market might have large participants because they are the ones doing the gaming, and are therefore happy to participate (even if trust is low).