Midlands State University Library
Image from Google Jackets

The new regulation of swaps: a lost opportunity/ created by Annette L. Nazareth and Gabriel D. Rosenberg

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextSeries: Comparative economic studies ; Volume 55, number 3Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013Content type:
  • text
Media type:
  • unmediated
Carrier type:
  • volume
ISSN:
  • 08887233
Subject(s): LOC classification:
  • HB90 COM
Online resources: Abstract: The U.S. regulatory system has multiple regulators on the federal and state level, many with overlapping jurisdiction. The result has been both overregulation and underregulation – in some cases, the same entity may be subject to different (and perhaps inconsistent) regulation for the same activity, while in other cases certain activities may remain unregulated in the midst of a complex regulatory patchwork. Regulatory reform in the United States provided a unique opportunity for reform of this archaic and byzantine regulatory structure. Yet, remarkably, the drafters of Dodd-Frank Act – an 849-page bill that includes 398 rulemaking requirements, implicates 25 regulators and creates 2 new ones – perpetuated many of these flaws. This article focuses on one of the clearest examples of complication in the U.S. regulatory structure exacerbated by the Dodd-Frank Act – the division of the regulation of securities, futures and (now) swaps between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Reviews from LibraryThing.com:
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Vol info Copy number Status Notes Date due Barcode
Journal Article Journal Article Main Library - Special Collections HB90 COM (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Vol. 55, no.3 (pages 535-548) SP17083 Not for loan For In House Use Only

The U.S. regulatory system has multiple regulators on the federal and state level, many with overlapping jurisdiction. The result has been both overregulation and underregulation – in some cases, the same entity may be subject to different (and perhaps inconsistent) regulation for the same activity, while in other cases certain activities may remain unregulated in the midst of a complex regulatory patchwork. Regulatory reform in the United States provided a unique opportunity for reform of this archaic and byzantine regulatory structure. Yet, remarkably, the drafters of Dodd-Frank Act – an 849-page bill that includes 398 rulemaking requirements, implicates 25 regulators and creates 2 new ones – perpetuated many of these flaws. This article focuses on one of the clearest examples of complication in the U.S. regulatory structure exacerbated by the Dodd-Frank Act – the division of the regulation of securities, futures and (now) swaps between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.