The insights from the 2008 financial crisis were that the banking sector was in need of change of regulation. The period from 2008 and onwards has involved several changes, of which capital requirements, MREL requirements and the resolution tool are three main regulations which have been introduced. The question being asked is whether we are now in a new macroeconomic regime, or whether the previous market regime which still prevails. To answer the question, the regulation that was added after 2008 is examined, as well as how these have motivated strengthening financial stability. The empirical evidence underlying the analysis consists of documents published by relevant authorities acting or working with regulation and/or supervision of the financial sector. The study has been carried out via an idea analysis where empirical ideas are used to answer the question of which macroeconomic regime currently prevails. The former regime is referred to as the market regime and is characterized by a belief in efficient markets through deregulation, independent central banks and a belief in a free market as the key to financial development. The regime that emerges shows both similarities and differences with the market regime. The fundamental political ideology that prevailed under the previous regime persists even today, but at the same time there are indications of a breaking point in the regime. Today's regime is more restrictive and the view of responsibility has clearly changed. Market regime thus still prevails but in a new guise, which was named neo-market regime to describe the differences between the period before 2008 and the period after.