If you’re not a fan of Sarbanes-Oxley and oppose new cross-industry business regulations (and/or a restructured regulatory regime), you might consider thanking Wall Street and the U.S. healthcare system.

Not so long ago, the term “regulatory reform” was a broad one – it referred to rules and principles that applied to all industries. Today, in the still-simmering wake of the financial crisis, the definition of “regulatory reform” in the U.S. has narrowed.

Now, it typically refers to the financial services industry centered in New York – where today President Obama faces the tall task of outlining his administration’s planned regulatory reforms.

From outside the U.S., the perception is that “proponents of reform, which include Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, as well as the administration, are facing an uphill battle to pass every aspect of the proposed legislation, with regulators lobbying to protect their turf and the industry attacking plans for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.”

As the healthcare reform battle grows increasingly contentious and drawn-out, I wonder how much political capital and “attention capital” the administration can muster for significant regulatory changes outside the financial services industry.

And when I do, IFRS emerges as the biggest question mark. ###