In fact, there is movement in the wrong direction.
That's in an ideal world. In this one, of course any regulatory regime is something you try to use for your own competitive advantage, especially if you've got a more cozy relationship with the regulators than your competitor does...
We got rid of a lot of big, too-big-to-fail, banks since then. The problem is we got rid of a lot of too-big-to-fail banks.
http://www.wsj.com/video/elizabeth-warren-too-big-to-fail-ba...
Those banks that we "got rid of" were just consolidated into other "too big to fail" banks. And even worse, the ones that survived learned that the White House and Congress will backstop them even when they crank up the risk, use corrupted ratings agencies, and sell mortgages of the worst quality to Fannie Mae + Freddie Mac.
Not really.
>In the years since 2007, we have made great progress in addressing the too-big-to-fail dilemma.
Not really.
>There are no easy answers, but a start would be to look ... [at] ... new “regulatory sandboxes,” where fintech companies can cooperate with regulators to ensure the safety and soundness of their businesses.
Here's the meat. Wall Street doesn't want their business automated by SV (as alluded to in the article), so even though they endlessly fight regulation of their own industry, the have no problem suggesting regulation for the SV little brother.