ill be honest even that article seems to suggest points 2) and 3) alone warrented more regulation (or at least not the loosening of regulation). there was really no reason given as to why there shouldnt have been regulation in those cases except for one quote from greenspan, when after the fact he said "it wouldnt have helped" - overleveraging makes for exaggerated profit gains - guess what the flip side of that is? of course it would have helped
and the author also makes the point that mark to market originated in 2007, which is just flat out untrue - its been in practice for a while now and was one of those things that i always thought was near flat out corrupt (or at least it had the potential to be so). i also thought it was absolutely hilarious (in a cynical, my god the entire financial sector is collapsing sort of way) when financial and accounting firms were PLEADING for mark to market to go away because their asset prices were plummeting overnight. this after years of FIGHTING FOR IT when they wanted to INFLATE their balance sheets. seriously people.
the bottom line is they wanted to value assets at whatever price suited them, when it suited them whether that was reflected by reality or not. it was basically the exact OPPOSITE of what cost accounting should be. it was one of the reasons why no one knew who was worth what, and why firms went down basically overnight. if "accounting" were going on, it would have been a much more clear field - what was going on was wishful thinking at best, intentional overinflation of asset values during good times at worst (not to mention putting off devaluation of asset prices during bad times solely to spruce up balance sheets)
the glass-steagall point might have some merit in that the commercial practices of some investment banks COULD have buoyed them up - but lets be honest that act wasnt repealed so investment banks could get in on commercial - it was repealed because commercials were getting KILLED by investments and wanted a piece of that action. in that light (and this one im not 100% sure on) the usual knock is that were g-s still in effect, citi and boa wouldnt have had the hits they had and would have been more insulated. the point of g-s was so consumers could choose to go to a risky investment bank and try for a better return, or they could go to a commercial bank for more standard loans and deposits. but they would do that knowing that their commercial banks werent about to start dumping their money into say, internet stock or the pet rock craze
the pure investment firms that were heavily leveraged into poorly valued "fads" were going down one way or the other once the music stopped playing. so i suppose the investments that were engaged in some of the commercial practices would have had that to fall back on when everything else went to hell