“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Greenspan said for the period of testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

With U.S. taxpayers now on the hook for about US$1 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, new regulatory oversight of the financial system is moderately plenteous a bygone conclusion. The only real question is whether the new administration will look to the past and merely update its current regulations, or look to the future and call into existence a new and innovative regulatory framework that aims to prevent the next financial crisis and not merely address the concerns of the last any.

For instance, the Wall Street landscape is undergoing a massive makeover as large firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers falter. Hedge funds and smaller, more nimble financial institutions are likely to arise up and fill that vacuum. New regulations must address the current want of transparency regarding these smaller players.

If successful, the U.S. could very well create a new and truly 21st century regulatory environment that will help restore confidence in its financial community. And while the U.S. is at least talking on the point implementing a new and forward-looking regulatory framework, here in Canada we are still arguing about whether or not we should have a national securities regulator.

Earlier this month, there was chatter that Quebec would drop its opposition to a national regulator in exchange for concessions from the federal government over Canada’s own financial rescue packages. However, a prolocutor for the Quebec provincial guidance quickly squashed the rumours.

Meanwhile, Doug Hyndman, the head of the British Columbia Securities Commission, and a staunch antagonist of a national securities regulator, told The Globe and Mail newspaper last month that Canada’s relative strength during the current market turmoil proves that Canada doesn’t need a national regulator.  Perhaps, but the financial institutions that be under the necessity been at the centre of the crisis have been banks, and in Canada banks are regulated by the federal government. Does anyone think that Canada’s banking sector would remain strong if we scrapped the circulating treaty connected view and replaced it with a patchwork of provincial regulators? Of give chase to not.

Canada may not have seen at all of its large monetary institutions collapse, but we have not emerged unscathed either. Canada’s securities commissions were noticeably silent during the freeze-up of non-bank asset-backed commercial paper effects earlier this year. Those assets last seized amid wrangling over a $34-billion settlement.

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has renewed his call for Canada to adopt a national securities regulator. Canada’s response to the financial shockwaves of the past six weeks was hampered by our inability to speak with a unified voice, Flaherty said in a speech earlier this week.

"Given the unprecedented turmoil in international pecuniary markets, it is also a good time to offer for consideration toward a single securities regulator that reflects regional interests notwithstanding can quickly respond by a single voice toward market developments," Flaherty said.

We can only hope that Flaherty’s provincial counterparts are listening this time.

Uncategorized