Can’t we just ask the regulator?: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
The world of modern finance was unexplored: broken-fenced frontiers everywhere you looked, and you were free to wander amongst the hinterland unrestrained by official hand. This, contemporary thought leaders believed, was best for everyone, in the long run.  
The world of modern finance was unexplored: broken-fenced frontiers everywhere you looked, and you were free to wander amongst the hinterland unrestrained by official hand. This, contemporary thought leaders believed, was best for everyone, in the long run.  


That was then: the cultivated fields of finance we till and tend today are very different place.  
Now to survive its own auto-destruction, any new programme must self-organise: that founding spirit of optimistic anarchy will resolve to well-meant gentle governance which in time will calcify into impenetrable rules, etiquettes and ways of operating [[calculated]] to maintain the emergent power structure around the programme. This happened to the fifties, to rock ’n’ roll, to the internet, it’s happening to crypto and will happen to the metaverse.


Now to survive its own auto-destruction, any new anarchy must quickly resolve itself into order, and well-meant gentle governance will in time calcify into deliberately ineffable rules and etiquettes designed to maintain the emergent power structure
The financial markets are the same: the libertine laissez-faire of the eighties that made all this possible has given way to utter technocracy.


What once seemed elegant now seems barbaric in its simplicity —  and we have long since grown inured to the idea that our every authorised action or financial impulse should be minutely monitored, reported, and regulated.
A freedom that once seemed hopeful and elegant now seems barbaric in its simplicity. We have become inured to the idea that our every or financial impulse should be minutely monitored, reported, and regulated.  


Being a pragmatist, it is not the JC’s motive to take sides in between paternalistic nannies and red-blooded monetarists, other than to say however regulations are framed, justice and good governance — the well-rehearsed imperative for juridical [[certainty]] — requires the rules to be as plain, simple and clear as possible, and where, as now, those they are not, to be capable of simple divination and unjeopardising challenge.
And that is fine. Being a pragmatist, it is not the [[Jolly Contrarian|JC]]’s motive to take sides in the cosmic debate: rather, to say, however heavily we frame our rules, good governance and our well-rehearsed imperative of juridical [[certainty]] requires them to be as plain, clear and actionable as they can be. Participants should not be left in doubt for what they can and cannot do, and should not be held hostage for the consequence of acting in a case of genuine doubt. 
 
Nor should rules be above criticism: times change, unintended consequences emerge, people make bad rules.  Practitioners at the coal face are the first to apprehend them. They should not be loathe to point them out. 
 
Rules be capable of simple divination and unjeopardising challenge.  


If the rules aren't clear, the regulator should be able to explain them and, in the case of unresolved ambiguity, make a call.
If the rules aren't clear, the regulator should be able to explain them and, in the case of unresolved ambiguity, make a call.


Anyone in the business will know this is the aspiration of an utter fantasist. Anglo Saxon regulators wouldn't dream of giving guidance, perhaps fearing the [[precedent]] an erroneous ruling night create, perhaps acknowledging that their own staff have no better ideas what the rules are meant to mean than anyone else.
Anyone in the business will know this is the aspiration of an utter fantasist. Anglo Saxon regulators wouldn't dream of giving guidance, perhaps fearing the [[precedent]] an erroneous ruling night create, perhaps acknowledging that their own staff have no better ideas what the rules are meant to mean than anyone else.

Revision as of 08:27, 27 September 2022

Conundrum with Whiteboard.png
“Conundrum with Whiteboard”. (von Sachsen-Rampton, 1995)
In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
The Devil’s Advocate

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.


It is well known and widely reported that regulations have grown in scope, density, interrelation and complication since those mad, dreamy Eighties days when rules were for birds and the Randian spirit of Aleister Crowley was the dominant fingerpost showing the way towards market governance.

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.

The world of modern finance was unexplored: broken-fenced frontiers everywhere you looked, and you were free to wander amongst the hinterland unrestrained by official hand. This, contemporary thought leaders believed, was best for everyone, in the long run.

Now to survive its own auto-destruction, any new programme must self-organise: that founding spirit of optimistic anarchy will resolve to well-meant gentle governance which in time will calcify into impenetrable rules, etiquettes and ways of operating calculated to maintain the emergent power structure around the programme. This happened to the fifties, to rock ’n’ roll, to the internet, it’s happening to crypto and will happen to the metaverse.

The financial markets are the same: the libertine laissez-faire of the eighties that made all this possible has given way to utter technocracy.

A freedom that once seemed hopeful and elegant now seems barbaric in its simplicity. We have become inured to the idea that our every or financial impulse should be minutely monitored, reported, and regulated.

And that is fine. Being a pragmatist, it is not the JC’s motive to take sides in the cosmic debate: rather, to say, however heavily we frame our rules, good governance and our well-rehearsed imperative of juridical certainty requires them to be as plain, clear and actionable as they can be. Participants should not be left in doubt for what they can and cannot do, and should not be held hostage for the consequence of acting in a case of genuine doubt.

Nor should rules be above criticism: times change, unintended consequences emerge, people make bad rules. Practitioners at the coal face are the first to apprehend them. They should not be loathe to point them out.

Rules be capable of simple divination and unjeopardising challenge.

If the rules aren't clear, the regulator should be able to explain them and, in the case of unresolved ambiguity, make a call.

Anyone in the business will know this is the aspiration of an utter fantasist. Anglo Saxon regulators wouldn't dream of giving guidance, perhaps fearing the precedent an erroneous ruling night create, perhaps acknowledging that their own staff have no better ideas what the rules are meant to mean than anyone else.

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Can’t_we_just_ask_the_regulator%3F&oldid=67854"