Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pinno

Thatcher had a thing about the 'Nanny state'. It was all about deregulation.
I wonder if the banking crisis would have happened without deregulation.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Thatcher had a thing about the 'Nanny state'. It was all about deregulation.
I wonder if the banking crisis would have happened without deregulation.

Markets are markets. To think that lack of deregulation could have stopped a financial crisis that was different from any seen before is a bit naive.

pinno

You mean toxic portfolio's were just down to markets and nothing to do with risky speculation and very bad practice?
Giving mortgages to those who could barely keep the payments up and bury them in amongst better debts and pretend that nothing could possibly go wrong.
It was said at the time that the biggest financial decision of your life was taking out a mortgage yet it was the least regulated.
Meanwhile, at the time, the blues endorsed Gordon Brown;'s fiscal policy. Just for the record.
We got sucked in to the American sub prime mortgage fiasco and even UK council's were investing in Icelandic organisations which were linked to those portfolio's.
Are you saying that 'it was just the markets' and such practices should never have been allowed?
Are you also saying that no amount of regulation would have prevented the crash?

ugo.santalucia

Going back to OT nukes... even the nukes keen North Koreans seem to understand they're bollox and there are better ways to harm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40297493

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Thatcher had a thing about the 'Nanny state'. It was all about deregulation.
I wonder if the banking crisis would have happened without deregulation.

Markets are markets. To think that lack of deregulation could have stopped a financial crisis that was different from any seen before is a bit naive.

Surely could have stopped a lot of the contagion, and prevented the need for bailouts to save too big to fail organisations.

coopster_the_1st

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Going back to OT nukes... even the nukes keen North Koreans seem to understand they're bollox and there are better ways to harm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40297493

Yes, I pointed to Mambo about 6 months that future warfare and attacks against the west would be cyber rather than physical. This was in relation to him trying to point score regarding closures of millitary barracks.

But on Nukes, we cannot wind back history and un-invent them.

So let me present this scenario to you:

The US and Russia agree to decommission all their nukes by time X. After X there is a rumour that one of the parties still has some nukes hidden away. Within a moment we are in full 'cold war' mode again as neither country can risk being militarily under powered.

So nukes in their current state provide stability and a war deterrent. Saying the you will not use a nuke neutralises that deterrent and in effect exposes your country to greater risk.

Putting yourself into a position where you may be leader of a country comes with responsilibities, one of them defending the country and its citizens. It also comes with having to make difficult and unpopular decisions. This is why JC is not someone who should be in a position to be leader of a country and thankfully the country agrees.

Lookyhere

Coopster the 1st wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Going back to OT nukes... even the nukes keen North Koreans seem to understand they're bollox and there are better ways to harm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40297493

Yes, I pointed to Mambo about 6 months that future warfare and attacks against the west would be cyber rather than physical. This was in relation to him trying to point score regarding closures of millitary barracks.

But on Nukes, we cannot wind back history and un-invent them.

So let me present this scenario to you:

The US and Russia agree to decommission all their nukes by time X. After X there is a rumour that one of the parties still has some nukes hidden away. Within a moment we are in full 'cold war' mode again as neither country can risk being militarily under powered.

So nukes in their current state provide stability and a war deterrent. Saying the you will not use a nuke neutralises that deterrent and in effect exposes your country to greater risk.

Putting yourself into a position where you may be leader of a country comes with responsilibities, one of them defending the country and its citizens. It also comes with having to make difficult and unpopular decisions. This is why JC is not someone who should be in a position to be leader of a country and thankfully the country agrees.

What scenario would you envisage that the UK alone, would have to use or threaten to use Nuclear weapons without the USA also prepared to use too?

I know in Plymouth, the closure of the Marine Commando barracks and the shrinkage of Devonport Dockyard plus the closure of Air bases down here, no maritime patrol craft and Army numbers down to historically low levels, doesn't really smack of "defending the nation"

Its a wonder how all the other countries throughout the world manage without Nuclear weapons but our little Island must have them and according to May be prepared to launch first? nothing to do with our seat on the UN security council then lol.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Time and again it has been demonstrated that reducing taxes increases government income. Time and again a new government claims that it is going to crack down on tax evasion only for it to turn out that the sums they were claiming were total hot air.

.

This isn't the case though, is it?

I mean, it isn't the case at all if you take it to extremes.

If the government reduced income tax to 0.1%, do you genuinely think tax revenues would grow?

Rick Chasey wrote:

People like Bompington, if I may generalise, automatically assume that we are at the top point of the laffer curve.

I see no empirical evidence for that, nor indeed evidence that it isn't.

No comeback to this?

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

You mean toxic portfolio's were just down to markets and nothing to do with risky speculation and very bad practice?
Giving mortgages to those who could barely keep the payments up and bury them in amongst better debts and pretend that nothing could possibly go wrong.
It was said at the time that the biggest financial decision of your life was taking out a mortgage yet it was the least regulated.
Meanwhile, at the time, the blues endorsed Gordon Brown;'s fiscal policy. Just for the record.
We got sucked in to the American sub prime mortgage fiasco and even UK council's were investing in Icelandic organisations which were linked to those portfolio's.
Are you saying that 'it was just the markets' and such practices should never have been allowed?
Are you also saying that no amount of regulation would have prevented the crash?

Claiming that the financial sector is under-regulated isn't really going to wash. Just try googling UK banking regs (although as you point out, the last crisis originated in the US, so to a large extent outside of UK regulatory control).

If you look at past crises, each one has been different. If you want to stop the next one due in 5/10/15 years, predict what will cause it and legislate. Not so easy without a crystal ball.

Alternatively you go for the scatter gun approach of regulating every aspect that you think might go wrong. The banks and institutions have to hire armies of compliance officers, IT support, project management and related support staff in order to comply. Who do you think ends up bearing these costs? To a large degree its the customer and probably to some degree the lower ranking employees in said institutions. Or they stop offering products because it is too expensive for them. Or in extremis they relocate functions and jobs to where regulation is less onerous. Careful what you wish for..

So next time you want a more expensive mortgage, vote for more regulation. Ironically it often those who demand that the banks are more heavily regulated are the same ones complaining about how the banks charge too much :roll:

rick_chasey

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

kingstongraham

I don't care how much stupid sh!t they get up to - as long as they aren't depending on an implicit guarantee from the government, and as long as people who have money invested know that they are. If any company is allowed to be a systemic risk, then they are living off government handouts.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

How can one propose how one "strikes the balance" if you don't know the answer to this?

Stevo 666 wrote:

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

Bankers are unhappy because their profits, and thus their pay, are being reduced. They are unhappy they spend so much on regulation. They are unhappy rules around leverage are reducing their profits. They have particular issues less around the need for regulation, which they think is necessary, but more around the ability of the regulators. But then, they won't work for the regulator, who I've worked for in the past, because they don't get paid enough.

But then again, a lot of them readily admit that the earnings they had pre-crash were unsustainable, and that their profits came at a very heavy cost to the rest of the economy.

Most are pretty contrite about it, those that aren't usually find themselves on the street, looking for work.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

But I'm sure that you realise that nearly all of these pain-in-the-arse regulations are there because someone exploited a loophole or regulatory laxness. What are regulators supposed to do - ignore these exploitations, just because it makes life less convenient for some people? There might be an obvious current parallel with building regulations, and the tragic effect of foot-dragging in applying lessons learnt to future regulation...

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

How can one propose how one "strikes the balance" if you don't know the answer to this?

Stevo 666 wrote:

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

Bankers are unhappy because their profits, and thus their pay, are being reduced. They are unhappy they spend so much on regulation. They are unhappy rules around leverage are reducing their profits. They have particular issues less around the need for regulation, which they think is necessary, but more around the ability of the regulators. But then, they won't work for the regulator, who I've worked for in the past, because they don't get paid enough.

But then again, a lot of them readily admit that the earnings they had pre-crash were unsustainable, and that their profits came at a very heavy cost to the rest of the economy.

Most are pretty contrite about it, those that aren't usually find themselves on the street, looking for work.

So who does know the answer? I can only go on what I see in my job and what friends in the big banks tell me - not scientific but it tells me that there is enough of the stuff.

As I said to Pinno above, without a crystal ball, it simply becomes onerous and expensive for the likes of you and me.

rick_chasey

Well given I graduated in the heat of the crash, and therefore it took me probably 12 months longer to find work than it did had I graduated the previous year, I can say with some authority that the crash for me personally cost me a whole lot more than the regulation will cost me.

And that's just a micro example.

That's before you look at the macro 'earnings scarring' that a crash inflicts on an economy. I'd hazard a guess that the cost of regulation is a few orders of magnitude less expensive to the public as a whole than a financial crash.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

But I'm sure that you realise that nearly all of these pain-in-the-arse regulations are there because someone exploited a loophole or regulatory laxness. What are regulators supposed to do - ignore these exploitations, just because it makes life less convenient for some people? There might be an obvious current parallel with building regulations, and the tragic effect of foot-dragging in applying lessons learnt to future regulation...

On the point about regulating financial markets, see my point about crystal balls. It's not so hard to regulate in response to past events (although as I see it in my job, the regs often do not properly address the underlying issues but still add cost and complexity), but the future is much more difficult, clearly. Which takes us back to my 'scatter gun' point.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well given I graduated in the heat of the crash, and therefore it took me probably 12 months longer to find work than it did had I graduated the previous year, I can say with some authority that the crash for me personally cost me a whole lot more than the regulation will cost me.

And that's just a micro example.

That's before you look at the macro 'earnings scarring' that a crash inflicts on an economy. I'd hazard a guess that the cost of regulation is a few orders of magnitude less expensive to the public as a whole than a financial crash.

How can you know that heavier regulation would have prevented the last crash?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well given I graduated in the heat of the crash, and therefore it took me probably 12 months longer to find work than it did had I graduated the previous year, I can say with some authority that the crash for me personally cost me a whole lot more than the regulation will cost me.

And that's just a micro example.

That's before you look at the macro 'earnings scarring' that a crash inflicts on an economy. I'd hazard a guess that the cost of regulation is a few orders of magnitude less expensive to the public as a whole than a financial crash.

How can you know that heavier regulation would have prevented the last crash?

Fairly decent evidence suggesting that were the rules on leverage stricter than they were, the banks would have been able to absorb the losses that they experienced.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

But I'm sure that you realise that nearly all of these pain-in-the-arse regulations are there because someone exploited a loophole or regulatory laxness. What are regulators supposed to do - ignore these exploitations, just because it makes life less convenient for some people? There might be an obvious current parallel with building regulations, and the tragic effect of foot-dragging in applying lessons learnt to future regulation...

On the point about regulating financial markets, see my point about crystal balls. It's not so hard to regulate in response to past events (although as I see it in my job, the regs often do not properly address the underlying issues but still add cost and complexity), but the future is much more difficult, clearly. Which takes us back to my 'scatter gun' point.

My point is that that's not a reason to do nothing though. Scatterguns might be somewhat random, but some of the shot might hit the target. Just because not all regulations will stop all future abuse or distortions is not a reason not to regulate.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

But I'm sure that you realise that nearly all of these pain-in-the-arse regulations are there because someone exploited a loophole or regulatory laxness. What are regulators supposed to do - ignore these exploitations, just because it makes life less convenient for some people? There might be an obvious current parallel with building regulations, and the tragic effect of foot-dragging in applying lessons learnt to future regulation...

On the point about regulating financial markets, see my point about crystal balls. It's not so hard to regulate in response to past events (although as I see it in my job, the regs often do not properly address the underlying issues but still add cost and complexity), but the future is much more difficult, clearly. Which takes us back to my 'scatter gun' point.

My point is that that's not a reason to do nothing though. Scatterguns might be somewhat random, but some of the shot might hit the target. Just because not all regulations will stop all future abuse or distortions is not a reason not to regulate.

If you worked in the banks (or with them as I do) and knew how much regulation there is, I doubt that you would take that view.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well given I graduated in the heat of the crash, and therefore it took me probably 12 months longer to find work than it did had I graduated the previous year, I can say with some authority that the crash for me personally cost me a whole lot more than the regulation will cost me.

And that's just a micro example.

That's before you look at the macro 'earnings scarring' that a crash inflicts on an economy. I'd hazard a guess that the cost of regulation is a few orders of magnitude less expensive to the public as a whole than a financial crash.

How can you know that heavier regulation would have prevented the last crash?

Fairly decent evidence suggesting that were the rules on leverage stricter than they were, the banks would have been able to absorb the losses that they experienced.

Specifically which rules on leverage?

If you are talking about capital requirements etc then overall not a bad idea. But that is more about being able to weather the consequences rather than being able to prevent the issue arising.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Here's a question Stevo - those costs of regulation you refer to - are they more or less than the cost of the crash caused by bad or missing regulation? From a public macro perspective?

Who knows. It's a case of striking a balance though.

The experience of both me (looking after a small treasury department) and some mates who work in a selection of large banks is that there really is no shortage of regulation. A good everyday example is that it is a continual source of frustration that when we are asked to do something simple like open up a new bank account with our main relationship banker for say a newly acquired subsidiary, I have to tell the business that it will take week, not days. Almost entirely due to the hoops that the bank has to jump through.

As you work with senior bankers I'm sure you get their perspective on the level of regulation - care to share any snippets?

But I'm sure that you realise that nearly all of these pain-in-the-arse regulations are there because someone exploited a loophole or regulatory laxness. What are regulators supposed to do - ignore these exploitations, just because it makes life less convenient for some people? There might be an obvious current parallel with building regulations, and the tragic effect of foot-dragging in applying lessons learnt to future regulation...

On the point about regulating financial markets, see my point about crystal balls. It's not so hard to regulate in response to past events (although as I see it in my job, the regs often do not properly address the underlying issues but still add cost and complexity), but the future is much more difficult, clearly. Which takes us back to my 'scatter gun' point.

My point is that that's not a reason to do nothing though. Scatterguns might be somewhat random, but some of the shot might hit the target. Just because not all regulations will stop all future abuse or distortions is not a reason not to regulate.

If you worked in the banks (or with them as I do) and knew how much regulation there is, I doubt that you would take that view.

Hold the front page: banks don't like being regulated.

I don't suppose they liked being fined £2.6bn for manipulation of foreign exchange rates, or the fines for Libor rate rigging either. I'm disinclined, therefore, to take moans from bankers as evidence that rigorous regulation is a bad thing.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well given I graduated in the heat of the crash, and therefore it took me probably 12 months longer to find work than it did had I graduated the previous year, I can say with some authority that the crash for me personally cost me a whole lot more than the regulation will cost me.

And that's just a micro example.

That's before you look at the macro 'earnings scarring' that a crash inflicts on an economy. I'd hazard a guess that the cost of regulation is a few orders of magnitude less expensive to the public as a whole than a financial crash.

How can you know that heavier regulation would have prevented the last crash?

Fairly decent evidence suggesting that were the rules on leverage stricter than they were, the banks would have been able to absorb the losses that they experienced.

Specifically which rules on leverage?

If you are talking about capital requirements etc then overall not a bad idea. But that is more about being able to weather the consequences rather than being able to prevent the issue arising.

Yeah I am. The leverage ratio.

I don't think we can expect regulators to be omniscient enough to spot the next heavily loss-making idea that can, in certain circumstances, take down a banking system. It's not practical.

You can however, make sure they weather the storm, so they don't bring down the system when they do make the inevitable f*ck up.

You can naturally regulate the obvious stuff, such as, for example if your firm is systemically important enough that it requires a bailout of some form if it fails, else the entire system collapses, then you can't do proprietary trading in any way.

You can then also regulate away things like miss-selling PPI, or colluding to fix LIBOR; that kind of thing.

Banks made a sh!t load miss-selling PPI. Hugely profitable. Doesn't mean it ought to be done, does it?

TheBigBean

A few points on this:
- Regulation that consumers, such as Steve 666, dislike is mostly KYC that is designed to prevent money laundering. I'm fairly sure there could be a more efficient system.
- Regulation that deals with capital allocation of banks (what Rick Chasey is talking about) to control M4 money supply is an evolving science. Basel III is better than Basel II which is better than Basel I. Basel I didn't differentiate between investment grade assets, Basel II did, but allowed AAA CDOs which were actually junk to be counted as AAA. The mistake was relying on rating agencies.
- Communism is the only way out of boom and bust
- The UK government didn't lose that much money on the financial crisis, so it actions were more about stability than subsidising.
- I remain a bit sceptical about LIBOR fixing. It was fairly obvious, so I think it extends beyond a few rogue traders.
- You can't regulate people's approach to risk. After a recession they are unwilling to borrow, but give it some time, and they are much more enthusiast.
- Some capable people do go to the FCA. The most disappointing aspect of the FCA is the lack of meaningful criminal prosecutions. Fining companies is a much smaller deterrent than sending people to prison.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

A few points on this:
- Regulation that consumers, such as Steve 666, dislike is mostly KYC that is designed to prevent money laundering. I'm fairly sure there could be a more efficient system.
- Regulation that deals with capital allocation of banks (what Rick Chasey is talking about) to control M4 money supply is an evolving science. Basel III is better than Basel II which is better than Basel I. Basel I didn't differentiate between investment grade assets, Basel II did, but allowed AAA CDOs which were actually junk to be counted as AAA. The mistake was relying on rating agencies.
- Communism is the only way out of boom and bust
- The UK government didn't lose that much money on the financial crisis, so it actions were more about stability than subsidising.
- I remain a bit sceptical about LIBOR fixing. It was fairly obvious, so I think it extends beyond a few rogue traders.
- You can't regulate people's approach to risk. After a recession they are unwilling to borrow, but give it some time, and they are much more enthusiast.
- Some capable people do go to the FCA. The most disappointing aspect of the FCA is the lack of meaningful criminal prosecutions. Fining companies is a much smaller deterrent than sending people to prison.

I am intrigued what you do for a living

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

How can you know that heavier regulation would have prevented the last crash?

Well, one simple example. There used to be a 2-1/2 to 3x salary cap on mortgages. That was removed, bad debt increased, crash. Inevitable. Probably a lot more examples.

pinno

What about those extortionate pay loan companies? Should they really be allowed to operate? How about some regulation there?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Hold the front page: banks don't like being regulated.

I don't suppose they liked being fined £2.6bn for manipulation of foreign exchange rates, or the fines for Libor rate rigging either. I'm disinclined, therefore, to take moans from bankers as evidence that rigorous regulation is a bad thing.

You clearly don't understand the commercial impact of excessive regulation. I've set out the likely consequences above.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Hold the front page: banks don't like being regulated.

I don't suppose they liked being fined £2.6bn for manipulation of foreign exchange rates, or the fines for Libor rate rigging either. I'm disinclined, therefore, to take moans from bankers as evidence that rigorous regulation is a bad thing.

You clearly don't understand the commercial impact of excessive regulation. I've set out the likely consequences above.

I guess reduced profits, and more work for the people involved. I get that regulations cost money and can be a pain in the arse. So does safety in buildings, workplaces and transport, but sometimes the extra cost is worth it (see cladding for high-rise buildings). Maybe the regulations are excessive, but you'd best argue that with the regulators, not me. I'm assuming that the regulations are there in response to historical events or perceived future threats, and that not to regulate in such circumstances would be to play poker with risk analysis.