A 'To Do' list

There is a lot going on at the moment, and I don't have time to write the extended posts I would like to on each of these topics, so for the weekend here's some material to be fleshed out later.

• Is global regulation or accounting a good thing? A post at Information Arbitrage made me consider the issue. They are in favour, pointing out that a complicated amalgam of rules, regulations and standards [...] places enormous friction on global transactions and doesn't really protect investors any better than under a standard, global, common sense regime. Certain inhomogenous standards are costly and advantage some institutions over others. But crucially that diversity may protect the system. At least in a country-specific regime, if a rule leads to perverse behaviour, it only screws up that country. If global rules are wrong, the whole system suffers. Given that we do not know how to write completely safe regulations for financial institutions, perhaps having a choice of regimes is a good thing?
  
• Q. When is it a good idea to voluntarily modify the term of issued securities to your financial detriment? A. When it avoids having to pony up cash that otherwise it might stress you to find. Financial Crookery explains all in a post on LYONS.
  
• Spreads, including the Libor/OIS spread, the iTraxx, and the Italy/Germany spread, are going out again, and the FED is trying to bring it in by expanding the size of TAF auctions. What is interesting about this is that liquidity, rather than rates, are being used as the tool of choice. Alea notes some unfortunate timing too, here, and Interfluidity has a provocative post here.
• Corporates think CDS spreads are wrong, and are pricing new debt off secondary bond prices rather than CDS again. Given some parts of the CDS market are pretty much one way right now, that makes sense.
  
• What did banks do wrong? See here for a summary.
  
• What is a safe level of capital for liquidity risk? Carlyle's fund was apparently leveraged 28:1 and they are being carried out. That implies that for a leveraged Agency position - a position with no credit risk remember - the capital for liquidity risk is at least 4%. Scary, huh?