Much of this post is written off the cuff, but my initial thought is that disrupting Wall Street is hard.

1. Lots of regulations ensure high barriers to entry.
2. Lots of money to ensure regulations stay in place.

Here is Dixon's list and my reasons why it is so hard to disrupt (usually due to the two reasons above):

1. Retail Banks- I'm not very knowledgeable on the specific regulations that banks face, but various rules that have changed throughout time are the areas where banks can operate (part of Glass-Steagel, Gramm-Leach-Bliley repealed it, again not an expert on their specifics), branches vs no branches, capital requirements, etc. Pretty much any of these and the ones I've left out create difficulties for any newcomers. You see some successful online alternatives like ING Direct, and hopefully the future of banking goes in a similar direction.

2. Credit Cards: To address one of Dixon's points, how do you have a payment company that DOESN'T rely on current financial infrastructure to some degree? He lists PayPal as an example, but PayPal is basically a payment processor/credit card alternative. They address the credit card problem but not the banking one, and there's still much room for improvement here (if Square was tied to banks instead of credit cards, they'd be one step closer).

3. Proprietary Trading: Some ideas to improve the system would be lowering accredited investor rules to allow more people to invest as they please and decreased regulations on hedge and mutual fund requirements to allow more competitive behavior between the two. Also added transparency on the availability of financial information and especially the actions of the proprietary trading desks within non-investment firms, so that shareholders of banks know the trading behavior occurring.

4. Trading: Similar to #3 except focused on the broker-dealers and not the investment banks. Most of the same points stand. Generally this industry has improved quite a bit over time, with commissions on trades dropping in 20 years from $100+ down to $7-$0. The latest concern Dixon points out is high-frequency trading. I'm not in favor regulating fair HFT, just the shadier dealings of front-running where they are using knowledge of other individual trades for their own game, essentially pumping up stocks before the public can buy them because they know what the public is buying before they buy it. Generally, as long as any citizen either directly by investing in an HFT firm (which is rarely, if never, allowed due to accredited investor rules) directly or through their hedge/mutual fund, then it's not really that unfair a playing ground.

5. Investment Banking: I am more sympathetic to the plight of the i-banks than most. I spoke once with the owner of a boutique i-bank in Illinois that does M&A and bond issuing on a mid-level scale and he said the regulations here are fewer than those related to trading. This is anecdotal. My gripe here is the same as everyone else. Due to their size, investment banks are have been protected from their losses by the government, when there were other options to cushion the blow while still holding the firms liable for their malinvestments. One of the few, but best ways I've thought of disrupting this industry is to have boutique specialist firms really start competing on price and features. The obvious problem here is that i-banking is often an industry of "it's who you know" as opposed to actual competitiveness. I.E. A company looking to do a bond issuing or M&A will go to the firm where they're comfortable friends of the people on the other side of the negotiation table.

6. Research: Dixon barely points out any problems here. The biggest problem is that similar to lots of consulting firms; they produce garbage for large fees. The simple solution is that well-meaning people and financial firms should only hire research firms that perform well. This industry should probably consolidate because theirs so much shitty finance research and modeling done.

7. Mutual funds: Could start measuring their compensation on performance, rather than fixed fees they receive now. Make the industry more lean. They might be "finance" companies, but they're traders, not investment banks. Being based on performance would mean every year half the industry would go starving while the rest were feasting, so it's unlikely to see that happen much. But if it did, it'd allow the industry to consolidate a bit. Traders/investors at large funds who think they could outperform their companies could start a new firm to get even greater personal gains. To me, that's the price for wanting to be in the trading game. It's like a salesman who works only on commission. You're paid for doing your job well.

What we have in modern finance is a regulatory-protected cartel. I believe some of the ideas I've brought up and problems Dixon pointed out could lead to a healthier financial future for the world.

However, many of these regulations are in place for good reasons, and I understand that. Most people should NOT have to dedicate their lives to handling their finances when it can be outsourced to specialists. That's how we manage most industries. Like in other industries, competition is the check and balance to that freedom. No one firm can dominate forever without continually improving its service if it doesn't want another upstart to come eat its lunch.

In that regard, the financial system we have now is significantly better than it was 100 years ago when people could get conned out of money by characters such as Charles Ponzi or whole towns could become bankrupt because the local bank couldn't diversify risk.

Simply put, we have put faith in financiers and have allowed regulations to protect them when we were trying to protect their customers. Now I believe is the time to bring down some of the walls so they may face competition. This will result in a healthier financial landscape.

It is my hope that as we move forward through the economic challenges facing out country, the financial industry is allowed to innovate, whether in a regulated fashion or not, in order to return to being a "financial services" industry.

Financial firms should exist to support industries and people, not abuse them.