16 July 2018
Michael Wilkins


Michael Wilkins - Fidessa

4Posts 15,089Views 0Comments

Two For One

03 February 2017  |  3952 views  |  1

If nothing else, we know the new regime in the US likes a good punchy sound bite. As many of us predicted, President Trump and his team have their sights firmly set on loosening the burden of Dodd-Frank and other regulatory sets that they feel make for a hostile business climate.

The tagline of Trump’s executive order for regulatory reform is “two for one” – for every new regulation issued, two must be identified for elimination. Sounds like a simple “yeah let’s cut the fat” kind of idea at first pass, doesn’t it? But while it sounds like a noble goal, the reality is that it’s much more complex. We all know that without specifics, attempts to change the rules can quickly run amok. Regulators can get so bogged down in the details that a grand attempt at simplification quickly turns into a mass of complication.

“Two for one” is always a welcome offer at the pub after work – less so when it comes to shifting policy.


TagsRisk & regulation

Comments: (1)

Ganesh Guruvayur
Ganesh Guruvayur - Intellect Design Arena - New Jersey 03 February, 2017, 23:33 I concur. There is a solid measure of enabling regulations buried under DFA that are meant to do a world of good. I cite two examples: DFA1033 has led to the emergence of consumer banking data aggregators such as Mint, Proper that have created beautiful apps that bring about an amazing convergence of transaction data, card balances, DDA balances, fetching them from bank sources, on the strength of the authority granted to them by the customers owning the banking relationships..This has unleashed the spirit of PS2 in the US environs. Similarly, DFA1073 has provided the ability for consumers to back out of a cross border transfer within 30 minutes of having placed the payment order. They can do this on the basis of another powerful guidance carried by the section i.e the visibility of important attributes of the transaction which previously where unavailable - value date, exchange rate, amount expected to reach at the other end of the transfer, cost of the transfer broken down into own bank fees, other bank fees. This feature sought to be enforced by the regulation is unprecedented in its reach and needs to be protected. Your post is on spot - broad brush repeal / consolidation of a full bodied regulation such as DFA could be detrimental.
Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups!
Comment on this story (membership required)

Latest posts from Michael

Two For One

03 February 2017  |  3952 views  |  1 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsRisk & regulation

A Trump card for regulation?

19 January 2017  |  3058 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsRisk & regulation

That's your limit!

09 December 2016  |  4639 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

A calmer approach to position limits

28 November 2016  |  3441 views  |  0 comments | recomends Recommends 0 TagsTrade executionRisk & regulation

Michael's profile

job title Business Development
location London
member since 2016
Summary profile See full profile »
A member of Fidessa's derivatives team, I am focused on the multi-asset trading requirements of global and regional FCMs, money managers and commodity trading houses.

Michael's expertise

Member since 2016
4 posts0 comments
What Michael reads
Michael writes about
Trade executionRisk & regulation
Michael's blog archive
2017 (2)2016 (2)

Who's commenting on Michael's posts