Banking regulation in the U.S. after the Dodd-Frank legislation differs from banking regulation rules proposed by the Independent Commission on Banking in Britain. Britain has a much bigger financial sector relative to the size of its economy than the U.S., posing larger systemic risks. The commission in Britain is proposing structural changes that would separate investment banking from deposit taking at banks. Banks would have separate balance sheets for these two activities- and operate them as separate subsidiaries- even though they are part of one holding company. This means it would be harder to raise money cheaply for risktaking in investment banking. Under the Volcker Rule in the U.S., banks investment banking and deposit taking would not be separated in a structural separation- there would still be one balance sheet- only banks ability to trade with their own capital and run hedge funds would be constrained. Some banks have spun off trading operations in the U.S. and the the rules banks have to follow have not been clearly defined. Too big to fail is still a problem under current American regulation, though its effects are mitigated to some extent. As one expert puts it, its hard to regulate the banks because too much money is involved and the banks have the money and the lawyers to prevent or dilute new rules. The argument made by the banks in Britain is that universal international banking provides a public benefit and efficiencies. But John Vickers, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, and chairman of the Independent Commission on Banking, has a different view. He said recently, "it seems quite hard to identify and quantify real efficiencies as distinct from purely private gains."...