COMPREHENSVE PROBLEM SOLVING AND CHANGING PATTERNS - (EDITED & UPDATED 6/25 & 12/2/2013 as well as 1/5, 2/24, 2/25, 5/21, 6/5, 7/2, 7/12, 8/5, 8/17, 8/21, 9/27 & 9/29/2014)

Introduction:
This is an update of an addendum to the previous post COMPREHENSIVE VERSUS AD HOC APPROACHES TO PROBLEM SOLVING to include the details as documented in the March 27, 2009 edition of that Business Street Daily/Weekend Publication in fairness to those involved in the development of the overall features of the new Financial Regulation. Wasting much time in attempting to cover-up one issue by introducing a complicated web of intrigue is not being attempted by me in admitting that from the referenced post it could be concluded that those charged with the overhaul of the aftermath of the financial crisis were implementing ad hoc changes. To put it simply, it was their intent to roll out comprehensive regulations addressing the following areas:

1. SYSTEMIC-RISK OVERSEER -  completely new
2. BEEF UP CAPITAL/RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARDS - updating of existing
3. HEDGE FUND REGISTRATION - completely new
4. COMPREHENSIVE OVERSIGHT OF DERIVATIVES - completely new
5. BEEF UP REGULATION OF MONEY MARKET FUNDS - updating of existing, and
6. CREATE A NEW RESOLUTION AUTHORITY - updating of existing

Whether or not they were or are being implemented in the manner in, which they were intended is another question but comprehensive they are intended to be even though the above summary indicates a mixture of old and new regulations. Therefore, when attempting to introduce new "comprehensive" guidelines and a mix of old and new criteria is advocated, it does not convey that serious and deep seated attempts are being made to regulate this complex area if as intended, a turning around of things compared to how they had been previously done, is not matching the rhetoric for what is being carried and where success is the stated objective.

These are the Specific Areas of Focus:

In the June 8, 2012 edition of the above referenced Publication under the title “Best Not Buy Those Companies Selling a Retail Turnaround”, the Writer in addressing retail turnarounds started out by emphasizing the obvious, turnarounds are hard and “fraught with peril”, “when the problem (at hand) is a fundamental shift in the retail landscape”. The Writer was advocating against buying shares of the leading electronics big box retailer (with a name that sounds like Est Dye) because of the challenges it was facing, especially after its Founder abruptly resigned and walked away from his business”, in, which he held an approximate 20.1% ownership stake. As pointed out in the article, the CEO “has seen the writing on the wall” because the business model that he helped to pioneer was facing increasing pressure from Internet sales and smaller specialty stores with highly knowledgeable and helpful staff. The Writer provided historical examples of those entities that found their business models disrupted and didn’t adapt to the changing marketplace and suffered as a result, and the examples provided included: Montgomery Ward, which no longer exists and Caldor, which closed in 1999. Other entities facing similar challenges are mentioned but that is not the primary focus of this post.
The size of the problem being faced by Est Dye is further magnified because of its size and complexity that tends to make turnarounds more difficult. On the other hand successful undertakings were highlighted, such as occurred at the GI in 1980 that rescued it from “obscurity” and at the same Est Dye organization in the 1990s when it was turned around though it was a much smaller operation at the time.
However, the rare example of a large entity turning around successfully is the case of Woolworth Corp., which completely changed focus by shutting down its five-and-dime stores and refocused its efforts on the shoe business and reinvented itself as Foot Locker.

The Implications and Possibilities:

The Foot Locker case is supposed to be a classic example of a successful turnaround that can be studied for lessons learned for their application to the type of problems facing those attempting to implement turnaround in behaviors because some of the same principles can be applied, (for ex. restricting trading positions via the introduction of trading range limitations in certain “critical to the economy” designated industries as opposed to a free wheeling type pattern previously used by traders). Focusing on a narrower product and doing it in a notable way as opposed to the much broader product mix previously utilized that was no longer relevant with the introduction of the Big Box retailers, achieved success. However, in my opinion, turning around the behavior o individuals is another matter, and Can ONLY take place in the lives of God's chosen.
On the other hand, the establishment of the “new” Resolution Authority by simply adding “new” powers to regulators to provide them with the authority to implement what was already being carried out with free standing banks and apply the same operating methods to the very complicated financial holding companies an opportunity was lost to really introduce a really new concept, “Living Wills” to provide entities with an outlined approach to enable such complex structures to be wind down with Regulators oversight instead of handling/managing the process, thus changing behaviors [as documented in the previous post HAVE LESSONS REALLY BEEN LEARNED FROM THE RECENT FINANCIAL DISASTER (EDITED)?]. These two examples are used to demonstrate in my opinion how the behavior changing requirements being called for may not produce the ultimate objective intended.

Conclusion:
In the end however, even the changes needed may be too difficult to implement to bring about meaningful reform especially if consistency is not practiced, because choosing such a "path" can only take place in an environment where change for the better is desired, [including adopting measures to address ALL the issues uncovered as documented in THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSIONs (FCICs) REPORT IN ADDITION TO TIME ALSO VINDICATES A CRUSADER - UPDATED and supplemented by details in item 2 of The Issues at Hand and the Note sections of the post COMPREHENSIVE VERSUS AD HOC APPROACHES TO PROBLEM SOLVING - UPDATED AND AMENDED , which has NOT occurred, with regards the shadow banking system]. 
From the methods used even while in the throes of the recent financial crises that occurred in 2009 and documented in the post, "WHAT LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED FROM THE RECENT FINANCIAL CRISIS - UPDATED?", it clearly demonstrated that real reform from questionable deal-making will be hard to come by those who rely on such methods to provide impostors with "credibility" by their elaborate schemes while hiding (since these types remain photoless as documented in the "To digress" discussion in the Here are Some Available Details section of the post FINDING CONTRIBUTORS FOR A MOGUL'S CHARITY - UPDATED) as "originals", and using the type of illegal methods described in FOOTNOTE as described in the post THE DECISION TO ALTER MY RETURN TO MY HOMELAND AT THIS TIME - UPDATED AND AMENDED, as supplemented by comprehensive discussion included in Footnote2 from the post WHAT LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED FROM THE RECENT FINANCIAL CRISIS - UPDATED AND AMENDED as well as the specific example depicted in the post THE PREMISE BEHIND THE "FLAWED" LEGISLATION - UPDATED in addition to generally in the post A BADLY SCRIPTED DRAMA - UPDATED IN OPEN DEFIANCE OF THE COURT'S RULING IN THIS MATTER AS DESCRIBED IN THE 3RD BULLETED LISTING IN THE CONCLUSION SECTION OF THE POST HOW CAN THERE BE ANY DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THE STATE OF FINANCIAL FIRMS IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE - UPDATED AND AMENDED). Finally, it must be pointed out in closing that behavior "turnarounds" are in reality ONLY possible in the lives of God's chosen as He is the only ONE capable of effecting such in our lives.