As you probably know, the rules are designed to limit risk-taking by banks. There are two main proposals: 1) prohibiting commercial banks from engaging in proprietary trading, which is investing the bank’s money (with the obvious goal of earning more money, though it doesn’t always work out that way); and 2) limiting the size of banks.

Wall Street and bankers around the world were surprised when these proposals were issued in January. I heard from many international bankers in Davos that they were very disappointed that the Administration did not consult with bank or government officials in other nations before announcing its proposals.

Banking is clearly an international industry, and it would be difficult for one country to reform and expect the rest of the world to either follow suit or play along.

I think everyone would agree that you don’t want banks playing with depositors’ money, but these proposals seem to mix apples and oranges. There is a disconnect between what the possible new rules seem to be trying to fix and what precipitated the financial crisis. For example, there is a focus on proprietary trading, but that wasn’t what brought the system to its knees. It was debt securitization, leverage and derivative-related products that were the real problems.

Another important consideration is that U.S. banks could end up at a real disadvantage to their international counterparts, who may well have more freedom with less stringent requirements in their home countries.

The so-called Basel rules essentially govern European banks, and under new proposals that could be adopted by the end of the year, those banks might see requirements loosened for the amount of capital they need to have on hand. Plus, if international banks are allowed to have bigger balance sheets, they could end up being bigger winners for investors as well.

How this plays out will be important for all investors, in terms of investing in U.S. and non-U.S. banks. It also has implications for the global economy. It’s a story I will follow closely for you at CNBC and here in Investor Brief.

Everyone wants financial reform that addresses the real problems that precipitated the financial crisis. It’s important to be smart about it and not rush to judgment to appease those who are angry, no matter how justified that anger might be.

But the trade group for mortgage lenders is refusing to say exactly how it extracted itself from that predicament.

On Friday, CoStar Group Inc., a provider of commercial real estate data, announced that it had agreed to buy the MBA’s 10-story headquarters building in Washington, D.C., for $41.3 million. The price is far below the $79 million the trade group says it paid for the glass-walled building in 2007, while it was still under construction. The price also is far below the $75 million financing that the MBA received from a group of banks led by PNC Financial Services Group Inc. to finance the purchase.

John Courson, chief executive officer of the trade group, declined in an interview Saturday to say whether the MBA would pay off the full loan amount. “We’re not going to discuss the financing,” he said. A spokeswoman for the MBA added that the MBA has reached “an agreement with all relevant parties” regarding the outstanding amount on that loan but declined to provide any details.

A spokesman for PNC, a banking company based in Pittsburgh, declined to comment.

Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP, a real estate advisory firm, announced in June 2008 that it had arranged the $75 million financing for the MBA. At that time, HFF said the acquisition loan took the form of a variable-rate, 30-year taxable bond transaction backed by a letter of credit from PNC. HFF said such bonds are typically sold to money market funds.

In an interview late last year, Mr. Courson said he believed mortgage borrowers should keep paying their loans even if that no longer seemed to be in their economic interest. He said paying off a mortgage isn’t only a matter of personal interest. Defaults hurt neighborhoods by lowering property values, Mr. Courson said. “What about the message they will send to their family and their kids and their friends?” he asked.

CoStar, currently based in nearby Bethesda, Md., plans to move its headquarters into the MBA building at 1331 L Street NW in Washington. The company was “fortunate to be able to take advantage of what we see as a historic opportunity to secure an exceptional asset at a greatly reduced price,” Andrew Florance, CoStar’s chief executive officer, said in a statement.

The MBA will move out of the building and rent elsewhere in Washington, the spokeswoman said. She added that a new space hadn’t yet been found.

When the MBA announced the purchase of the building in early 2007, the trade group’s president at the time, Jonathan Kempner, said: “We have come to the inescapable conclusion that owning our own building was the smartest long-term investment for the association.” In October 2009, however, the MBA informed its members that it had put the building up for sale. At that time, the MBA said that continued ownership of the building, which was financed with $75 million of variable-rate debt, would be “economically imprudent.”

The MBA spokeswoman said some members have since then concluded that the trade group shouldn’t be in the business of owning real estate.

The MBA had trouble finding tenants for the space in the building it didn’t occupy. The trade group uses about 40% of the building’s 169,000 square feet and tenants occupy about 10%, the spokeswoman said.

Falling membership and heavy debt costs related to the building have squeezed the MBA’s finances in recent years. The MBA’s membership totals about 2,400, down from a peak of 3,000 several years ago, but has increased recently, the spokeswoman said, and the organization expects to show a small surplus in its accounts for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. The MBA’s staff has dropped to 107 from a peak of about 150, she said.

CoStar said the District of Columbia encouraged it to move its headquarters to Washington. CoStar is to receive $6.1 million in property-tax abatements over 10 years if it meets certain conditions, including hiring 100 District residents. CoStar said it may be eligible for additional tax benefits from the District.