Should Malaysia Jump Into a Financial Reform?
Yesterday's economic climate may be tough on some large companies, let alone SMEs' who barely make ends meet every month.
Given the fact that financial experts were the ones who got us into this trouble and also out, who do we really put the blame to? In essence, excellent financial planning per annum is often a priority; and CFOs' often put focus on issues other than just business concepts and goals.
There are a lot of things beyond our control at some point: Non-fuel commodity prices, consumer demand, cost of fuel, inflation, and so forth.
Regulating financial processes through forecasts by experienced CFOs' can prove to be the best thing - But also leaving space for liquidity, high financial tolerance levels and so forth.
Brings us back to one point: "Can governments reduce the probability of any future financial crises that we've just recently experienced?" Being one entity that participates in best financial practices is often not enough - Let alone depend this 'word spread' among other partner entities and the general public.
Local regulators like government bodies need to consider the wide market while balancing financials for best performing industries, or forecasted rising opportunities.
If you notice, we're getting into a financial bind that could cause us trouble if not managed well.
Last month, the Obama administration put out an 89-page document titled Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation.
If you have time to read the whole report, they are generally based on making sure financial institutions do not overdo amplified potential gains with borrowed money, in which creates more and more binds; generally increasing cash outflow on interest rates rather than for development.
It's not your general mortgage loan which costs RM300,000 or RM500,000.
It's probably US$10 billion or more.
Should you be one of the group investors, stakes are high and you'd probably need to be commensurated with a favorable amount to justify your risks.
Technically speaking, there are probably no solid reasons why financial institutions should get into this mess anymore after being slapped so hard on the face with the recent economic turmoil.
If we were to think of it realistically, could these institutions be covering their past?
Given the fact that financial experts were the ones who got us into this trouble and also out, who do we really put the blame to? In essence, excellent financial planning per annum is often a priority; and CFOs' often put focus on issues other than just business concepts and goals.
There are a lot of things beyond our control at some point: Non-fuel commodity prices, consumer demand, cost of fuel, inflation, and so forth.
Regulating financial processes through forecasts by experienced CFOs' can prove to be the best thing - But also leaving space for liquidity, high financial tolerance levels and so forth.
Brings us back to one point: "Can governments reduce the probability of any future financial crises that we've just recently experienced?" Being one entity that participates in best financial practices is often not enough - Let alone depend this 'word spread' among other partner entities and the general public.
Local regulators like government bodies need to consider the wide market while balancing financials for best performing industries, or forecasted rising opportunities.
If you notice, we're getting into a financial bind that could cause us trouble if not managed well.
Last month, the Obama administration put out an 89-page document titled Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation.
If you have time to read the whole report, they are generally based on making sure financial institutions do not overdo amplified potential gains with borrowed money, in which creates more and more binds; generally increasing cash outflow on interest rates rather than for development.
It's not your general mortgage loan which costs RM300,000 or RM500,000.
It's probably US$10 billion or more.
Should you be one of the group investors, stakes are high and you'd probably need to be commensurated with a favorable amount to justify your risks.
Technically speaking, there are probably no solid reasons why financial institutions should get into this mess anymore after being slapped so hard on the face with the recent economic turmoil.
If we were to think of it realistically, could these institutions be covering their past?