[chendies]

Transparency of pricing models does not immediately result in better outcomes for consumers. In some cases, it may actually result in worse outcomes.

Consider when there are few companies within an industry, like rare metal mining. If they chose to use the same, open-source pricing model, and any changes to that pricing model would be reflected by all companies, the optimal pricing model would be to price at the monopoly level -- to raise the price to where it would be if there were no competition and a single firm in the marketplace.

In the case of lending, however, different firms have different levels of risk acceptance. Many firms (big banks) avoid high-risk borrowers. A few firms (pay-day lenders) are willing to lend to those borrowers, but only at a high interest rate. Somewhere in the middle is a collection of scrupulous lending opportunities.

Any regulation that would restrict the acceptable interest rates to a narrow band would reduce not just the (unscrupulous) loan sharks but also the banks lending to high-risk customers.

This would necessarily result in loss of borrowing ability to those labeled "high-risk".

Is this a desirable outcome? Maybe, maybe not. But it should certainly be discussed.

[anoplus]

It's true openness isn't free of side effects. I think a mining company that has exclusive possession over a public resource should be rewarded with the value creation (mining) and not by possession (natural resources). A government should designate the natural resources to public welfare and is ultimately achieved by openness. A resource greedy mining company would rather dispense with transparency in this case.

Regarding the borrower problem. This is a common fear of revealing one weaknesses by openness. I believe society will invent new alternatives to support the new needs. Again, it seems openness is positive overall, despite new challenges it presents.