I'm going to be cautious here, as there may be real differences that explain this story, but the FT has reported that (and I've edited this down, a lot):
Carnegie, the Nordic region's oldest and largest investment bank, was taken over by the Swedish government on Monday after its licence was revoked for failures in its internal controls.
"The decision has been taken in order to protect the financial stability and to preserve the value of the collateral," the National Debt Office said in a statement on Monday.
Carnegie has been under investigation by the Swedish FSA over its internal management and controls, particularly concerning large credit exposures. Carnegie made a loss of SKr362m ($46m) in the third quarter after making a SKr1bn provision for a problem loan.
The significance is that a single loan is supposedly the cause of this (although that seems odd, and unlikely to be the whole story). But what interests me is the reaction. It is to say there has been a failure, that the bank's management are to blame, and that the strructuire must be changed.
Sweden, of course, famously survived a previous banking crisis. If this is their approach I expect they will do so again this time, better than we will. Our problem is simply: we will not point a finger when it is clear one needs pointing. They have had the courage to do that. It's a massive difference, even if the underlying causes may be different.