The pitfalls of overhasty business deregulation
JOHN F Kennedy was fond of the expression 'don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up'. First laid out by English writer GK Chesterton, it is a reminder not to rush reforms through without considering the consequences. There are few better examples of how Donald Trump and his supporters are ignoring this principle than Republicans' plan to scrap the US audit regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
Under the proposal, included as part of the vast tax and spending bill before Congress, the PCAOB's responsibilities, which include ensuring and policing audit quality, would be folded into the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The plan may yet fall foul of procedural hurdles. But it is of a piece with other chainsaw-first reforms set in motion since Trump's return, powered by a belief that all deregulation must be good for business.
They include Trump's pausing of enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prevents Americans bribing foreign government officials to win business, and the gutting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which protects citizens against bank fraud. Then there is the 'reining in' by executive order of independent agencies including the SEC, Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission, whose two Democratic commissioners have been fired.
These moves raise a question: what is business regulation for? In the case of the PCAOB, the answer is clear. Before the audit regulator came into being, US auditors and audit standards were largely self-regulated. The smug assumption that this was good for the profession and investors was shattered in 2001 when energy company Enron collapsed. Its auditor Andersen, riven with conflicts of interest, disintegrated.
Commenting on changes in audit regulation in 2003, Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's then-business partner and vice-chair of Berkshire Hathaway, said accounting standards had 'deteriorated faster than morality in investment banking – and I hate the first more than the second because I expected more of the accountants'.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Having at first resisted the change, big firms mostly see the value of a regulator that prevents a free-for-all and a race to the bottom in audit quality, even though they may carp occasionally about the activism of the board's current chair, Erica Williams. She said this week she was 'deeply troubled' by the draft legislation.
Governments everywhere should submit regulation to regular review, pruning onerous and unreasonable rules. It is also legitimate to examine where regulators sit on a spectrum between encouraging growth and ensuring safety, as is happening in the UK.
In the US, mechanisms already exist to redirect or reform regulation. When an administration changes, a change in leadership of agencies is also expected. The new SEC chair, Paul Atkins, is a conventional Republican choice, who seems set to push through a more incremental shift to lighter-touch regulation. Bigger reforms, such as abolishing the PCAOB, deserve debate in Congress, rather than be forced through as a line item.
The Financial Times has outlined the dangers to financial markets posed by reckless financial deregulation in the US. Recent history shows the deeper consequences of lax supervision: after Enron's collapse, and the US and global corporate scandals uncovered in its wake, came the financial crisis of 2008 – which, incidentally, spawned the formation of the CFPB. By hacking wildly at the fences erected after those disasters, Trump and the Republicans could prompt an answer to the 'why regulate?' question, by destroying the effective competition that proportionate protection from corporate and financial malfeasance provides. FINANCIAL TIMES
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Why Trump's deployment of military in California is so controversial
US President Donald Trump ordered California National Guard to dispatch at least 2,000 soldiers to LA to control thousands of demonstrators. PHOTO: REUTERS Why Trump's deployment of military in California is so controversial President Donald Trump ordered the California National Guard on June 7 to dispatch at least 2,000 soldiers to the Los Angeles area as thousands of people demonstrating against immigration raids clashed with security forces. After vandalism and violence broke out, the Pentagon escalated the federal response by also mobilising 700 active-duty Marines. The president said on his Truth Social platform that federal agencies were to take 'all such action necessary' to stop what he called 'migrant riots'. The rare move by a president to mobilise military forces to quell domestic unrest was quickly condemned as unnecessary and counterproductive by local authorities, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom. On June 9, California sued the Trump administration over its 'illegal' deployment of state troops and US Marines, claiming it had overstepped its authority. What is the National Guard? The National Guard has its roots in the colonial militias formed in the 1600s to defend the colonies against Native Americans and European powers, making it the oldest component of the US military. As the militias evolved and became more organised and professional, National Guard units were founded in all the states and US territories. Presently, the National Guard comprises more than 325,000 members recruited mostly from the communities they serve as a state-based reserve force to assist with emergency responses to natural disasters and civil unrest. Most members are civilians who volunteer to serve part-time. They are also available for federal service, including overseas deployments. Who normally calls on the National Guard, and why? State governors typically coordinate the activation of guard troops to respond to local events, from wildfires to floods, when civil authorities are overwhelmed. When the guard is called in to help restore order, state and local law enforcement agencies remain responsible for security. On some occasions, the president has deployed National Guard troops to respond to civil unrest and rioting. President Lyndon Johnson, for example, deployed National Guard soldiers under federal control in Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore to help quell race riots in the late 1960s. This was in response to requests for federal assistance from state and territorial governors. Likewise, President George H.W. Bush activated the California National Guard in 1992 at the request of Governor Pete Wilson and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley when rioting broke out in the city following a jury's acquittal of police officers charged with severely beating a Black man, Rodney King, after a high-speed car chase. The last time a president has activated a state's National Guard without a request from the governor was in 1965, when President Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Under what circumstances can the president call on the military? The law strictly limits the federal deployment of troops within US borders. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, along with amendments and supporting regulations, generally bars the use of the active-duty US military - the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines - from carrying out domestic law enforcement. Important exceptions to the 1878 law are contained in the 1807 Insurrection Act and its modern iterations, which allow the president, without congressional approval, to employ the military for domestic use in certain circumstances. The Insurrection Act has been used very rarely to deploy troops under federal control domestically without a request from a state government, with examples mostly dating from the Civil Rights era. The law on which Trump relied to unilaterally dispatch California National Guard troops to Los Angeles - a provision of Title X of the US Code - permits domestic deployment only in cases of invasion by a foreign nation, rebellion, or danger of a rebellion. The president's June 7 proclamation gives Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth the authority to direct troops to take 'reasonably necessary' actions to protect immigration agents and other federal workers and federal property. It also permits him to use members of the regular armed forces 'as necessary to augment and support the protection of federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion'. Mr Trump and top officials in his administration have sought to justify the current Los Angeles deployments by arguing that local and state officials have failed to restore order. The president joined White House border czar Tom Homan in suggesting that Newsom should be arrested over his handling of the unrest. In its legal challenge, California is arguing that the president has abused his authority, saying there is no rebellion or invasion that justifies Mr Trump sending troops into Los Angeles. How else has the National Guard been controversial? Perhaps the most infamous deployment in modern history was in May 1970 when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on a crowd of students at Kent State University, who were protesting the Vietnam War and President Richard Nixon's announcement of an invasion into Cambodia. The resulting deaths of four students and injuries to nine others sparked widespread outrage. In his first term, Mr Trump asked state governors to send troops to Washington to curb protests that erupted after the murder of Mr George Floyd in 2020. Years later, former Defence Secretary Mark Esper testified to a House committee that he and others had to convince Mr Trump there was no legal justification for that use of the military. At the time Mr Trump felt the unrest in the wake of Mr Floyd's murder in Minnesota made the US look weak, Esper told the committee. As he campaigned for a second term, Mr Trump made clear he wanted to be more aggressive in using the military. At an event in Iowa in 2023 he labelled several big cities 'crime dens' and said he previously held back from sending in the military. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Chinese tourists ramp up European summer trips, as Americans cut back
Overall, Chinese tourists are being tighter with their budgets than most of their global counterparts. PHOTO: REUTERS Newly cost-sensitive Americans may be hitting the breaks on their big European vacations this summer, but another group is taking up the slack: Chinese travellers. According to a survey about long-haul trips the European Travel Commission (ETC) is publishing on June 10, which was previewed exclusively with Bloomberg, 72 per cent of Chinese respondents say they plan to travel to Europe this summer – up 10 per cent from 2024. The figures reflect the highest demand from Chinese travellers since the pandemic. That should elicit a sigh of relief for hoteliers, restaurateurs and other business owners across the continent who depend on big-spending foreign tourists. Before Chinese outbound tourism ground to a halt in 2020, it represented a particularly lucrative sector in Europe, with Chinese travellers coming in second to Americans in spending. Chinese tourists spent US$251 billion (S$323 billion) abroad in 2024, according to UN tourism, surpassing pre-2020 levels. That makes China the largest market in terms of overall tourism spending, even if until recently most of this revenue was spent on trips within Asia. But there's a significant catch in ETC's findings: Chinese tourists do not plan to spend like they used to. That is notable, given the group's previous propensity for luxury shopping. In fact, just 29 per cent of respondents say they plan to spend more than €200 ($290) per day, a 44 per cent drop compared to last summer, and a majority of Chinese travelers – 54 per cent – plan to limit their budgets between €100 to €200 a day. Even still, at least 53 per cent of Chinese respondents in ETC's report indicate shopping will play at least some role on their trips, and budgets are more generous among business travellers, 36 per cent of whom expect to spend more than €200 a day. Overall, Chinese tourists are being tighter with their budgets than most of their global counterparts. The ETC's survey queried 7,100 long-haul travellers from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea and the US about their summer travel intentions – and results show that a total of 11 per cent of travellers to Europe will be lowering their spending this summer. The overall ratio of travellers spending only €100 to €200 per day – 40 per cent – was lower than the Chinese traveller percentages. The reality is that in a climate of economic uncertainty, few travellers are splurging – regardless of their origins. That is echoed in data from the World Travel & Tourism Council showing that tourism growth is expected to slow sharply in 2025. Only a third of the ETC's American respondents are planning trips to Europe this summer, which is 7 per cent fewer than in 2024. And yet another three markets surveyed in the ETC report – Brazil, Canada and Japan – are on the decline, to a lesser degree. High travel costs and plans to vacation locally are the primary deterrents. Mr Eduardo Santander, chief executive officer of the ETC, sees reasons for optimism. 'While recovery from China has been more gradual than other long-haul markets, momentum is clearly building,' he said. Building back business with these travelers, he added, 'remains a top priority for many European destinations.' In other words, it's a relief that Chinese travellers are coming at all. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
French budget minister warns of IMF, EU oversight risk
FILE PHOTO: French Minister for Public Accounts Amelie de Montchalin arrives to attend a meeting with main economic actors over Trump tariffs, at the Bercy Economy and Finance Ministry in Paris in Paris, France, April 9, 2025. REUTERS/Abdul Saboor/File Photo PARIS - France must put its finances into order or face the risk of being placed under the supervision of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or of European institutions, Budget Minister Amelie de Montchalin said on Tuesday. "Today, we need to seize the budgetary weapon again, get our house in order, and put it back in order, because if we don't, others will decide for us," Montchalin told RTL radio. "There is a risk of supervision by international institutions, European institutions, our creditors," she added when asked if France faced a risk of supervision by the IMF. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou plans to unveil proposals in July to get public finances under control, hoping to push through a 40-billion-euro ($45.62 billion) budget squeeze in 2026. France has a long history of flouting EU overspending rules and is currently running the biggest public sector deficit in the euro zone, at an estimated 5.4% of economic output this year. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
