Given the inherent risks of downward spirals in regulatory competence - not least the way financial sector firms can "rent" politicalinfluence - how can we design the system to prevent the race to the bottom and regulatory arbitrage?
Clearly, we need somecreative thinking here, not least because those who are being evaluated are unlikely to welcome the ranking!
We've noticed a few surveys recently that are looking at attitudes to the financial crisis from within the industry (see Norton Rose) http://www.nortonrose.com/knowledge/publications/pdf/file25916.pdf, Greenwich did a survey about the Tobin tax http://www.greenwich.com/WMA/in_the_news/news_details/1,1637,1862,00.html?vgnvisitor=eKOZmqOJnJw=)A group of us in the NSFM (Hu
NSFM participant Prof Michael Mainelli is pushing forward ideas very compatible with NSFM core beliefs in a new project called the "Long Finance" Movement - see http://www.longfinance.net for more details.
NSFM participant Hugh Wheelan, editor of Responsible-Investor.com, argues for ESG trade bodies to take a bolder, more strategic approach to the post Global Financial Crisis reforms.
Adam Kanzer from Domini Social Investments and Stephen Davis from the Millstein Center at the Yale School of Management. The IAC is undertaking consideration of further expanding required environmental, social and governance disclosure under the leadership of the IAC’s Investors as Owners Subcommittee, which Stephen Davis Chairs.
Recently the SEC issued interpretive guidance for companies concerning their disclosure related to climate change. A copy of their guidance can be found at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf