Bigger — and more entrenched — hedge funds

That could be the result of the new institution of elaborate compliance system mandates that could prove to be beyond the capacity of fledgling start-ups, per Marc Hodak:

So, the government decided it had to increase regulations [on] the one part of the financial services sector -– hedge funds –- that had nothing to do with the financial crisis. And because the government felt compelled to spend gobs of taxpayer cash to bail out financial institution[s] that were too big to fail, Congress created a raft of regulations whose main effect will be to crush entrepreneurship and compel waves of consolidation. And the people who pushed for this regulation, who inadvertently insisted that the fixed costs of doing business in America are not yet high enough, will be shocked to find that only the big survive.

One Comment

  • Hearing so many complaints against “too big to fail” and “taxpayer bailouts” I wonder if such are justified at all. I don’t think so. Banks are subject to runs otherwise they would not be banks. Why can’t we as a people cover the risk to some extent. Those poor souls who owned AIG stock saw there $!,400 a share stock drop to $7. I believe it hit 33 cents at one moment. The fat cats, including average-worker’s pension plans, were heavily punished, but the world and our country need some big banks.

    The principle cause of the financial meltdown, and our deficit problems was the demographic problem of productive people all trying to save for retirement at the same time, especially in China.