Netting opinion: Difference between revisions

Now this is a polemic, we confess. Many in the industry may scorn this cavalier view. Just because we are paranoid, does not mean no-one is following us, they will say, and they may well be right. But okay, then try this: netting opinions are a regulator-mandated prudential protection. There is — clearly, joyfully, ''gleefully'' — no end of nuance that those from [[Negotiator|the guild of opinion writers]] can inject into their reasoned analyses. So why does not the Basel Committee centralise this process? Why doesn’t it own it? It could mandate and commission the opinions itself, gather them centrally, and on their basis decree, annually, for all, with which counterparty types credit institutions can and cannot prudently embark on trading relationships? Then the playing field is level; opinions are gathered once, and they apply worldwide. There is also transparency here: a central, authoritative source, and an impartial standard to which emerging markets can appeal, and against which they can measure their commercial regulations to put them in fit state for international finance.