A variety of commentators, columnists and editorial writers have recognized that. There were many other similar reactions. A second area of concern is the challenge of the yet to be developed details. There is, for example, a general commitment in the federal policy paper to permit a holding company structure for financial services companies, including chartered banks. The central logic is not difficult.
Regulation imposes costs.
It is a necessary burden and safeguard for some parts of a financial services business - particularly those involving services for individuals such as retail deposits. Regulation is far less necessary, and what is necessary can be done at much lower cost, for example in the case of services provided to large customers, generally speaking, corporations and governments. But in the absence of a holding company structure, regulatory costs inevitably fall on all of the business units, and must be passed on to all of the customers. A holding company allows entire lines of business that require little or no regulation to be spun out of the existing, all-encompassing corporate structure, and provided from a separately incorporated subsidiary. Many of their competitors are new, many are non-banks, many are foreign, many operate with little or no regulation and an increasing number as already noted operate with few or no employees here.