Its seems to be a wonderful yet childlike idea. (Voting on this issue is nonsensical. Democracy cannot replace free-markets. (The wholesomeness and sustainability of democracy to establish and maintain a government that serves its people first and then the world without discrimination is obviously deeply flawed.) The issue might more likely need to be addressed with moral-ethical leadership whilst keeping the markets free. A slightly more sophisticated approach which does not find its strength in childlike GUNG-HO somewhat cheap attempt at faking moral high ground might be needed. As a matter of truth such approach will be counterproductive and non sustainable. If we are serious about reform we might need to choose not to be overtly populistic and fatally simplistic in our approach. A filtered process that protects the confidentiality of the strategic model and holdings of funds whilst accurately reporting risk in a clear yet sophisticated fashion both quantitatively and qualitatively might certainly be a more sensible suggestion. Certainly an over-simplistic approach to transparency will only benefit biggest and strongest and least innovative funds after the dust has settled.