Hacker News Reader

Depends. If competitors aren't playing by the same rulebook, you're at a competitive disadvantage, and that risk could outweigh the risks you'd prefer to avoid. Regulation is needed not just to prevent risky actions, but to evenly distribute the incentive to avoid risky actions.

View on HN

That's not true of banks, because as history has shown, a temporary competitive advantage as a result of riskier behavior often ends with insolvency (indeed, often is the case with business in general, but especially banking). In the case of Frank and his leadership and influential role, it stands to reason he would foresee such risks and avoid them. As of yet, though, I haven't heard any concrete argument about a specific item of the original legislation (or its current leaner form) that would have prevented Signature or SVB failures.

This makes no sense. It was a bank not a hedge fund.

Do you think banks don't need to compete? Aren't exposed to risk? They're not hedge funds, but they're still participants in various investment markets, and compete for customers on rates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com