The Bank of England leader issued an alert about easing rules. It ran on October 3, 2025. Andrew Bailey, the bank’s governor, warned against cutting financial oversight just to boost the economy. He drew on ideas from economist Hyman Minsky. Minsky argued that people soon forget past money crashes. This forgetfulness sparks pushes to loosen controls. Bailey’s words come as UK money chief Rachel Reeves pushes her “Leeds Reforms.” These aim to trim back some bank rules. Yet Bailey stressed a clear point: strong money safety does not clash with growth aims. There is no real choice between the two. His view highlights risks from past events like the 2008 crash. Back then, loose rules led to big bank fails and job losses. Bailey’s caution urges leaders to weigh long-term safety over quick gains. Readers might ask why this matters now. With global economies still shaky from recent shocks, such warnings help avoid repeat mistakes.
Next, the article on home repair know-how in young folks. It appeared on October 4, 2025. A survey points out that 30 percent of people think DIY skills fade in the under-30 crowd. Gen Z adults, born from 1997 to 2012, show low trust in their own fix-it powers. Fully 41 percent doubt their skills. Still, these young adults wrap up projects quicker than older groups. They also pour more cash into tools and supplies. Platforms like YouTube and TikTok serve as top guides for tips. Short videos teach tasks from wall painting to shelf building in minutes. This shift marks a change from old-school books or classes. The survey, likely from a home goods firm, reveals mixed trends. While hands-on confidence dips, speed and spending rise. Perhaps quick online lessons build basic know-how without full training. This could address worries about skill loss in a busy life. For parents or teachers, it raises questions on how to boost real practice beyond screens. Overall, the findings show young people adapt in smart ways, even if old views on DIY linger.
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey’s recent warning against financial deregulation in pursuit of economic growth represents a critical juncture in the ongoing tension between financial stability and competitiveness. His invocation of Hyman Minsky’s theory and pushback against Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ “Leeds Reforms” signals a fundamental disagreement about the path forward for financial services. For Singapore, a financial hub that has built its reputation on robust regulation combined with business-friendly policies, this debate offers important lessons and potential competitive opportunities.
The UK Context: A Clash of Economic Philosophies
Bailey’s Cautionary Stance
Andrew Bailey’s speech in Amsterdam was notable for its directness and timing. Speaking at a Dutch central bank event, the Bank of England governor made several key arguments:
The Minsky Moment Theory: Bailey referenced economist Hyman Minsky’s observation that as memories of financial crises fade, so does the appetite for regulatory safeguards. This creates a dangerous cycle where deregulation sows the seeds of the next crisis. The governor explicitly stated he sees “evidence there is a risk of history showing signs of repeating itself” in current deregulation calls.
The False Trade-off: Perhaps most significantly, Bailey rejected the premise underlying much of the deregulation push: that financial stability must be sacrificed for growth and competitiveness. He argued there is “no trade-off” between these objectives, warning that “if the baby is thrown out with the bath water… we won’t achieve our objectives.”
Historical Parallels: Bailey drew a direct line to pre-2008 deregulation arguments, suggesting current proposals echo the “strength of the deregulation argument before the financial crisis.” This is a pointed reminder that the 2008 global financial crisis emerged partly from decades of progressive deregulation.
The Leeds Reforms: Reeves’ Vision
Chancellor Rachel Reeves launched the “Leeds Reforms” in July 2025, representing a significant shift in UK financial policy. These reforms aim to:
- Scale back post-crisis financial regulation
- Encourage greater financial risk-taking
- Boost economic growth through increased financial sector activity
- Enhance London’s competitiveness as a global financial center
The tension between Reeves and Bailey has been evident for months. In late July, Bailey warned against dismantling post-financial crisis ring-fencing rules designed to separate retail banking from riskier investment activities. He also reportedly blocked a meeting Reeves planned regarding Revolut’s regulation, citing concerns about political interference in the Bank of England’s oversight processes.
The Minsky Framework: Understanding Financial Instability
Core Principles
Hyman Minsky’s “Financial Instability Hypothesis” provides the theoretical backbone for Bailey’s concerns. The theory suggests that:
Stability Breeds Instability: Prolonged periods of economic stability lead to increased risk-taking as market participants become complacent and memories of past crises fade.
The Three Stages of Financing: Minsky identified three types of financing behaviors:
- Hedge financing: Conservative borrowers who can meet all payment obligations from cash flows
- Speculative financing: Borrowers who can meet interest payments but must roll over principal
- Ponzi financing: Borrowers who cannot meet either interest or principal payments from income and rely on asset appreciation
The Minsky Moment: Eventually, a trigger event causes a sudden collapse in asset values, exposing the fragility of the overly leveraged system.
Post-2008 Relevance
The 2008 financial crisis followed Minsky’s script remarkably closely. The period from the early 1990s to 2007 saw progressive deregulation, including:
- The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall Act provisions in the US
- Light-touch regulation in the UK under the “tri-partite” system
- Minimal oversight of shadow banking and derivatives markets
- Rising leverage ratios across the financial sector
Bailey’s concern is that, seventeen years after the crisis, we’re entering a similar phase where regulatory fatigue and competitive pressures are creating momentum for deregulation.
Singapore’s Position: Balancing Act Excellence
The Singapore Model
Singapore offers a fascinating counterpoint to the UK’s current dilemma. The city-state has successfully maintained its position as a premier financial center while upholding rigorous regulatory standards. This success stems from several factors:
Principles-Based Regulation: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) employs a principles-based approach that provides flexibility while maintaining high standards. Rather than prescriptive rules, MAS focuses on outcomes and expectations, allowing innovation while ensuring stability.
Proactive Adaptation: Singapore has consistently updated its regulatory framework ahead of crises rather than in reaction to them. Examples include:
- Early adoption of crypto-asset regulations
- Comprehensive fintech regulatory sandbox
- Robust anti-money laundering frameworks
- Strong consumer protection mechanisms
Alignment with Global Standards: MAS has consistently implemented Basel III and other international standards, often exceeding minimum requirements. This has built confidence among international investors and institutions.
Institutional Independence: Like the Bank of England, MAS maintains independence from political pressures while coordinating with government economic objectives. This balance has been crucial in maintaining credibility.
Competitive Implications
The UK’s deregulation push creates both opportunities and risks for Singapore:
Potential Opportunities:
- Flight to Quality: If UK deregulation is perceived as compromising stability, risk-averse institutions and investors may increasingly favor Singapore’s well-regulated environment.
- Talent Attraction: Financial professionals seeking stable regulatory environments may consider Singapore more attractive than an increasingly uncertain London.
- Enhanced Reputation: Singapore’s commitment to balanced regulation could enhance its reputation as a responsible financial center, particularly important for institutional investors with ESG mandates.
- Asian Time Zone Advantage: As London potentially faces regulatory uncertainty, Singapore’s position as Asia’s premier financial hub could be reinforced, particularly for institutions seeking to diversify away from single-center risk.
Potential Challenges:
- Competitive Pressure: If UK deregulation successfully attracts business without triggering instability, Singapore may face pressure to loosen its own regulations to remain competitive.
- Regulatory Arbitrage: Financial institutions might exploit regulatory differences between jurisdictions, potentially creating risks that cross borders.
- Global Race to the Bottom: The UK’s move could trigger competitive deregulation globally, putting pressure on Singapore to follow suit or risk losing business.
- Brexit Ripple Effects: The UK’s post-Brexit repositioning as a more lightly regulated financial center could reshape global financial flows in unpredictable ways.
Lessons from Financial History
The Pattern of Deregulation and Crisis
Financial history reveals a recurring pattern:
Pre-1929: Minimal regulation preceded the Great Depression 1933-1970s: Strong regulation (Glass-Steagall era) saw relative stability 1980s-2007: Progressive deregulation culminated in the 2008 crisis 2008-2020: Re-regulation through Dodd-Frank, Basel III, etc. 2020s: Growing calls for deregulation
Bailey’s warning suggests we may be entering another deregulation phase, potentially setting up the next crisis.
Singapore’s Crisis Management
Singapore’s approach during past financial disruptions offers insights:
Asian Financial Crisis (1997-98): While regional neighbors faced severe distress, Singapore’s well-capitalized banks and robust regulatory framework provided resilience. MAS maintained standards while providing targeted liquidity support.
Global Financial Crisis (2008-09): Singapore experienced economic contraction but avoided banking failures. MAS actually tightened some regulations during this period, including property lending rules.
COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-21): MAS provided unprecedented support while maintaining regulatory oversight, demonstrating that stability and flexibility can coexist.
Policy Implications for Singapore
Maintaining the Balanced Approach
Singapore should consider several strategic responses:
1. Reaffirm Commitment to Stability
MAS should clearly communicate that Singapore will not engage in a “race to the bottom” on regulation. This message resonates with:
- Institutional investors prioritizing stability
- Family offices seeking secure wealth preservation
- Multinational corporations valuing predictable regulatory environments
2. Targeted Innovation
Rather than wholesale deregulation, Singapore can continue its approach of targeted innovation zones:
- Expanded regulatory sandboxes for fintech
- Clear pathways from sandbox to full licensing
- Innovation facilitation that doesn’t compromise core stability
3. Enhanced Cross-Border Coordination
As regulatory divergence grows globally, Singapore should:
- Strengthen information sharing with major financial centers
- Lead regional regulatory harmonization efforts
- Maintain active participation in global standard-setting bodies
4. Monitoring and Stress Testing
Given Minsky’s insights about stability breeding instability, Singapore should:
- Enhance macroprudential surveillance
- Conduct regular stress tests incorporating deregulation scenarios in other jurisdictions
- Monitor cross-border financial flows for signs of regulatory arbitrage
5. Strategic Communication
Singapore should articulate the value proposition of its regulatory approach:
- Emphasize long-term stability over short-term gains
- Highlight historical track record during crises
- Position Singapore as the “responsible choice” for financial services
Specific Sectoral Considerations
Banking Sector: Singapore’s major banks (DBS, OCBC, UOB) are well-capitalized and conservatively managed. Maintaining strict capital adequacy requirements provides competitive advantage during uncertain times.
Asset Management: Singapore has grown rapidly as a wealth management hub. The UK’s regulatory uncertainty could accelerate this trend, particularly for Asian and Middle Eastern wealth.
Insurance: Singapore’s robust insurance regulatory framework positions it well as London’s insurance market faces Brexit and deregulation pressures.
Fintech and Digital Assets: Singapore’s clear crypto regulation contrasts with ongoing uncertainty in many jurisdictions. This clarity attracts serious blockchain projects while deterring purely speculative ventures.
The Broader Economic Context
UK Economic Pressures
The Leeds Reforms must be understood within the UK’s post-Brexit economic challenges:
- Sluggish productivity growth
- Loss of EU financial services passporting rights
- Competition from EU financial centers (Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris)
- Need to demonstrate Brexit benefits
These pressures create strong political incentives for deregulation, regardless of longer-term stability risks.
Singapore’s Economic Strategy
Singapore faces different but significant challenges:
- Aging population and demographic pressures
- Need for sustained productivity improvements
- Competition from Hong Kong (despite political uncertainties)
- Transition to digital economy
However, Singapore’s approach has been to address these through innovation and upgrading rather than deregulation.
Looking Ahead: Scenarios and Implications
Scenario 1: UK Deregulation Succeeds
If the Leeds Reforms attract business without triggering instability:
- Singapore faces increased competitive pressure
- May need targeted regulatory adjustments
- Could emphasize other competitive advantages (location, efficiency, talent)
Scenario 2: UK Deregulation Fails
If deregulation leads to financial instability or scandals:
- Singapore’s reputation for stability enhanced
- Significant business migration possible
- Validates Singapore’s regulatory approach
Scenario 3: Regulatory Divergence Accelerates
If major financial centers adopt different regulatory philosophies:
- Increased complexity for multinational institutions
- Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage
- Greater importance of coordination mechanisms
Scenario 4: Global Re-regulation Wave
If financial stress emerges elsewhere, triggering renewed focus on stability:
- Singapore well-positioned as early adopter of strong standards
- Could lead global standard-setting efforts
- Enhanced reputation as responsible financial center
Conclusion: The Singapore Advantage
Andrew Bailey’s warning against financial deregulation represents more than a policy disagreement with the UK Chancellor. It reflects a fundamental question facing all financial centers: how to balance growth ambitions with stability imperatives.
For Singapore, this debate offers a strategic opportunity to differentiate itself. While others may be tempted by short-term competitive gains through deregulation, Singapore’s consistent commitment to balanced, principles-based regulation positions it uniquely.
The Minsky framework reminds us that financial stability requires constant vigilance, particularly during seemingly calm periods. Singapore’s experience demonstrates that robust regulation and financial sector competitiveness are not opposing forces but complementary elements of sustainable success.
As global financial centers navigate the tensions between deregulation and stability, Singapore’s model offers a viable alternative path—one that prioritizes long-term resilience over short-term gains, and that recognizes financial stability itself as a competitive advantage rather than a constraint.
The coming years will test whether Bailey’s warnings or Reeves’ reforms prove prescient. For Singapore, the strategic imperative is clear: maintain the balanced approach that has served it well, resist pressures for competitive deregulation, and position itself as the stable, responsible choice in an increasingly uncertain global financial landscape.
In an era where memories of the 2008 crisis fade and calls for deregulation grow louder, Singapore’s commitment to stability may prove to be its greatest competitive asset.
Maxthon
Maxthon has set out on an ambitious journey aimed at significantly bolstering the security of web applications, fueled by a resolute commitment to safeguarding users and their confidential data. At the heart of this initiative lies a collection of sophisticated encryption protocols, which act as a robust barrier for the information exchanged between individuals and various online services. Every interaction—be it the sharing of passwords or personal information—is protected within these encrypted channels, effectively preventing unauthorised access attempts from intruders.
Maxthon private browser for online privacyThis meticulous emphasis on encryption marks merely the initial phase of Maxthon’s extensive security framework. Acknowledging that cyber threats are constantly evolving, Maxthon adopts a forward-thinking approach to user protection. The browser is engineered to adapt to emerging challenges, incorporating regular updates that promptly address any vulnerabilities that may surface. Users are strongly encouraged to activate automatic updates as part of their cybersecurity regimen, ensuring they can seamlessly take advantage of the latest fixes without any hassle.
In today’s rapidly changing digital environment, Maxthon’s unwavering commitment to ongoing security enhancement signifies not only its responsibility toward users but also its firm dedication to nurturing trust in online engagements. With each new update rolled out, users can navigate the web with peace of mind, assured that their information is continuously safeguarded against ever-emerging threats lurking in cyberspace.