It's easy to save the world when you've already taken care of yourself. But, we rely on these mavericks -- the wealthy who realize they can make a difference -- to do what we cannot on our own. So, it comes as a relief that Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft (MSFT) believes executive compensation is still too high.

It's a murky topic, and some forms of regulation, Gates believes, won't help. In a discussion on philanthropy at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, where many of the people Gates criticized send their kids for early education, the former CEO and still rich guy cites the $1 million executive salary cap required by law in 1993 as a big mistake. While compensation has to be controlled, he believes this measure backfired and thinks that other, similar efforts are doomed to fail now.

There may be a new rule coming from the Fed that will make banks stronger but will hurt investors. There's a good possibility that banks will have to raise their "well-capitalized" capital requirement from 7% to 8%. The current definition of "well-capitalized" is 6% but the unofficial rate that regulators like to see is 7%. That means for every asset on the books of $100, there is now $7 of capital to back it up. With the new rule, that capital cushion would go to $8. That means the FDIC would have more protection against losses ($8 of protection is better than $7). But the question is: where do banks find the extra $1?

They can come up with it several different ways, none of which help current investors. The first, and easiest way, is to simply sell assets and lower the total size of the bank. If a bank of $1 billion has capital of $70 million, it could sell enough assets to shrink to $875 million. Then the capital base stays the same at $70 million (assuming no gain or loss on the sale of the assets) but the percentage of capital is now 8% rather than 7%.

Imagine this:Your bank holds $81 trillion dollars worth of derivatives which is 40% of all the derivatives held by all the banks. Actually this is not a fairy tale. JP Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) does own this staggering pile of derivatives. What those derivatives contain in the way to toxic assets is a mystery because all of these transactions are "off the books."

Now enter the government that wants to regulate the derivatives market and force more transparency in reporting transactions, which heretofore have been kept secret. One of the proposals is to have each transaction go through a clearing house so that there would be a visible record of the securities and the players.

A few weeks ago Dodd's Senate banking committee held hearings on the need for regulation of the financial industry. Present were 10 regulators each from one of 10 different regulatory bodies. Dodd commented: "the picture of 10 people was the picture of the problem."

So it seems that we have too many regulators, none of whom were able to individually or collectively deal with the recent financial debacle. Now lawmakers are trying to figure out what to do and how to do it. Obviously there will be fierce power struggles among the existing agencies. Hal Scott, professor at Harvard University said: "its grown topsy turvy since the civil war driven by a reaction of events -- the turf was where industry always wants its own regulator that they can be more comfortable with."

This post is part of a feature in which we wonder whatever happened to some notorious financial felons. See all 17.

Just say it's been "a long and winding financial road" for billionaire investor George Soros -- but one that's had more smooth traveling than detours.

True, the Hungarian-born Soros was fined $2 million by a French court in 2002 for insider trading, which France's highest court upheld on an appeal on June 14, 2006, but other than that transgression, critics would be hard pressed to find other operational/financial flaws.

Soros is perhaps best known for one of the most cunning and successful short-term plays in investment fund history. On September 16, 1992 Soros sold short more than $10 billion worth of the British pound, after the Bank of England failed to raise interest rates. Soros' profit on the ensuing fall in the pound: about $1.1 billion.

Further, the other dimensions of Soros life that some critics would cite -- his social activism and philanthropy -- are viewed as positives by many others. Soros has promoted nonviolent democratization in Central and Eastern Europe, and other states, and pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to numerous universities globally and to antipoverty programs in Africa, among many other charitable acts.

Billionaire investor George Soros believes the current financial crisis is the worst since the Great Depression, and said stocks have not bottomed yet, Bloomberg News reported Thursday.

Soros said the most recent market bottom "will probably not prove to be the final bottom," adding that the current stock rebound will last six weeks to three months as the United States moves closer to recession, Bloomberg News reported.

Further, Soros, in an op-editorial column in The Financial Times, argued that the cause of the market's current problems is a flawed premise: the belief that markets are self-correcting and tend toward equilibrium. They aren't and don't, Soros argues, and the laissez-faire policy creates bubbles, including the most-recent housing bubble, which, in turn, when it started to burst, led to the current credit crunch.

Soros cites deregulation

Soros added that the market's current troubles originated in 1980 when U.S. President Ronald Reagan and United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher led a laissez-faire movement that reduced/eliminated regulation of banks and financial markets, the FT reported.

Another day, more worries about Google (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s growing global power. The internet advertising juggernaut has so much influence over the spread of information (and the advertising dollars that come along with that) that it's hard to see just how powerful the company has become in just the last three years alone.

So here we are in 2008, and -- again -- government regulators are growing more concerned about the power Google has. In a capitalist society, where does the free market end and the power of government begin? That's a formula nobody can answer. When the U.S. government made its case against Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) a decade ago, it included pieces of how the company trampled on its competitors using illegal tactics. I've never agreed with the Internet Explorer part of that litigation and never will -- since, after all, consumers are free to download any free web browser they please. Is the growing government concern over Google's growth in the same venue? It shouldn't be.

Is anyone forcing you to use Google every single day? Nope -- it's your choice. Google ascended to the top spot in internet search without distributing a single piece of software to its customers or using any kind of illegal tactics at all. It simply provided the best and most complete experience. Customers recognized that and have made Google the top choice in internet search (and advertising along with it).

Does that require regulation? How absurd. It's true that Google could provide privacy details (and much more) to each customer at regular intervals -- but if it screws up, users will leave Google. But, when a company that does so much right for its consumers grows large because of that fact, competitors turn to any tactic they can to try and stem the flood. Making a better product, in the free enterprise tradition, would seem a better tactic.

As the SEC considers a proposal to raise the minimum liquid net worth for hedge fund investors from $1 million to $2.5 million, the agency is receiving hundreds of letters (WSJ, subscription required) from individual investors. Many of these experts make excellent arguments for why, if anything, the net worth thresholds should be raised. Here are some of the best arguments: One of them asked why small investors should be restricted from hedge funds, but not speculative Pink Sheets stocks? Another summed up the laissez-faire argument pretty succinctly: "Stay out of my wallet, stop trying to protect me from myself, stop presuming to know more than I do about my own life, risk-tolerance, and financial sophistication."

The problem with hedge funds is that it makes very little sense to regulate them in such a sweeping, unilateral way. Why should a conservative fund that specializes in lightly leveraged merger arbitrage or covered calls be regulated the same way as a highly leveraged fund that trades Pokemon card futures? It just doesn't make sense.

But since the whole idea of hedge funds it that they're not regulated, treating each fund differently would require investigation of each one -- which defeats the whole purpose.

Carnegie Mellon University Professor Allan Meltzer has an interesting editorial in this weekend's Wall Street Journal (subscription required). As Congress considers ramping up hedge fund regulation, Meltzer isn't buying it: "... whatever the perceived problem, more regulation is not the answer. It is far better to change some incentives for excessive risk-taking. The old saying is true: Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. The answer to excessive risk-taking is 'let 'em fail.'"

He makes a compelling case against bailouts of collapsing hedge funds, arguing that these can serve to increase excessive risk-taking.

The recent explosive growth in hedge funds and private equity will lead to some inevitable blow-ups in the years to come, probably starting soon. Just recently, a pair of Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) funds collapsed. As the panic sets in, investors and regulators would do well to keep a copy of Meltzer's column close by. Only through painful failure will investors learn the pitfalls of excessive risk.

See also:
Jon Ogg: Bear Stearns' subprime fund implosion -- media hype, or serious meat?
Kevin Kelly: Less talking, more hedging please
Tom Taulli: No June gloom for hedge funds
Zac Bissonnette: Is Bear Stearns in play?

According to an article in the Financial Times, three-quarters of U.S. chief financial officers believe that Sarbanes-Oxley should be repealed. In other news, Paris Hilton does not believe that driving on a suspended license should be illegal.

But seriously, does the fact that CFOs believe that Sarbox should be repealed mean anything? According to the article, "Last month, Financial Executives International, a grouping of treasurers and chief financial officers, found that costs associated with implementing Section 404 had fallen by 23 percent since 2005. But it also found that 78 percent of executives polled in a survey believed that the costs of Sarbox still outweighed the benefits."

It's hard to quantify the benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley, which makes doing a cost-benefit analysis difficult. It's probably impossible to know how many cases of accounting fraud the bill has prevented -- kind of like trying to figure out how many deaths per year are prevented by laws requiring that guns be kept in locked cabinets when children are around.

Still, the CFOs do have a right to complain: Sarbanes-Oxley was passed mainly to restore investor confidence after the collapses of Enron and Worldcom, among others, and it may be more stringent than necessary. The SEC will enact some reforms to the bill to make it more business-friendly, while still keeping the substance in place to protect investors.