Mandelson attacks Obama’s bank plans
Share
First minister and business secretary Lord Mandelson has dismissed the banking reforms recently announced by President Obama as “too sweeping”.
According to reports, Mandelson argued that focus should be concentrated on proper regulation of the financial services sector rather than limiting the activities of banks.
Speaking at the University of New York last night, he said: “Trying to apply sweeping rules about the structure, content and range of banking entities’ activities is too difficult to do. It’s the principles and practices of regulation you have to focus on, not the size and range of banks.”
Mandelson admitted that the UK Government had been caught off guard by the announcement of the ‘Volcker rule’, which proposed a cessation of proprietary trading by deposit-holding banks.
He said any bank regulation or limitation should be decided at an international level so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage and insisted that Britain would be at the centre of any reforms.
But he did admit that changes had to be made to the regulation of banks, making sure “utility” activities could work safely alongside “casino-linked activities”.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (3)
PensionMan | 4 Mar 2010 1:20 pm
Does anyone actually care what this unelected muppet says?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Mar 2010 3:15 pm
Answer to PensionMan a resounding NO
sorry it was probably rhetorical but I could not resist. What will Mandy be if labour lose the election? Shadow minister of shadows perhaps?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
AJ | 4 Mar 2010 3:24 pm
Unelected he may be but Mandy in a Kermit costume would certainly perk things up and make more people interested in what's being decided in their name....
... seriously, I believe the Mandelson position reflects what UK banks are saying. Namely that regulation has to be international if it's to work at all.
There seems some sense in this, in that large banks are now multinational. And the US seems to be retreating back into a New Deal solution because it worked before. In the 1930s. But the world has changed, the US needs to come out of its shell and engage with the rest of the world, for fear that the banking crisis could happen again.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment