The Journal of Regulation & Risk North Asia has just published its issue for the Summer/Autumn 2010. Do not be misled by the title: a sign of these global times is that the issue is full of mutually relevant commentary on issues concerning US, European and international financial regulation and is going to be an invaluable resource for anyone interested in the topic. Best of all, it is freely available here, though you may have to register to download.
The new issue contains terrific contributions by a range of leading figures across the world, including Peter Wallison, Enrico Perotti and Lawrence White. Also included are published versions of valuable and now widely circulated papers by Andy Haldane of the Bank of England and my co-blogger, Jennifer Taub. Yours truly contributes a modest, extemporaneous critique of Dodd-Frank.
The tireless (and seemingly ubiquitous) Chris Rogers, Editor-in-Chief, and his team are to be congratulated for taking this journal to a new level and for making freely available what will surely become one of our central repositories of advanced thinking on the subject of financial risk and its regulation.
PDF 
Ok, tell me honestly, Paretocommons bloggers–don’t be afraid to “stick a knife in your friend”……
That I dearly love, really love my friends here at Paretocommons, because I feel this is an issue that affects ALL Americans………. that you make me want to puke out your lungs and NEARLY puke out this blog when you say Peter Wallison is a “leading figure across the world”?????? uuuuuaaaaaawh VOMIT!!!!!!!! Oh Godshit man, I feel the BILE and shit coming up out of my intestines, the same as I feel when they blame Carter for inflation (due to 70′s oil), and Credit Reagan with the killing of inflation, due to Volcker’s policies…….
Would anyone from the CATO institute like to argue with me now, so the people on this blog can keep a profitable “running debate” and tell me I’m making the argument “too personal” now??????????????????
Ted Sir,
Strong words indeed, but to have a debate/dialogue, it does take all sorts, be they leaning to the left or the right.
If you read perhaps some of what I myself write, you will no doubt realise where my own affiliations rest.
As for this blog, you are correct, many of the contributors are serious minded academics critical of our current regulatory environment, wide-boy accounting practices and casino capitalism in general.
As for me, I’m but a jobbing hack with an interest in governance, risk management and compliance issues within financial services – I make no claims to being an expert, quite the reverse, but like you have grave concerns about the way finance is run currently.
As an example, I’m appalled by Fuld’s recent comments in Congress and his belief that the US taxpayer should have bailed out Lehman’s – this from a man and a business that did all it could to avoid paying corporate and personal tax.
Its still my firm belief that banking, that’s old fashioned boring banking, has multiple economic benefits, unlike much of what we see today with TBTFs which are an economic burden on the economy, and a dangerous one at that.
Lawrence,
Many thanks for your generous words – perhaps a little too generous for what still remains a work in progress. However, the editorial team is committed to encouraging debate and dialogue in the fields of governance, risk management and compliance.
So, if anyone reading this has an interesting paper, article or opinion piece, do let us know and if its suitable, we’ll include it in the Journal.
Our next editorial deadline is 15 November.
Ted, you are getting toooo grumpy! Like Chris I tend to share your (non-grumpy) views, but I do respect the proponents of the other side of the debate. Some of these issues are so hard, don’t you think? And hang in there with me on the complexity stuff. I acknowledge the pitfalls, but I think the interdisciplinary, scientific view markets, rather than one efficient market hypothesis slice of it, would make for better regulators and regulation. But there is a lot of work and thinking to do, I admit.
Lawrence,
Hopefully Ted may be interested in penning a paper and having it published, as stated, we welcome all sides of the debate – and that means airing all views whether we agree or not – indeed, an actual debate/dialogue in print is always welcome with two proponents venting their views fully.
Do PM us and we can see if we can arrange something in time for our November deadline.
PS
Horrible typo on contents page – will be amending and reloading Sunday – if anyone else notices typo’s, please let me know – we have yet to physically print this, so a few more days to make changes.