Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan to reform an ailing financial regulatory system is a lot of sizzle but very little steak.

Paulson’s so-called “Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure,” lacks concrete rules, places too much power in the hands of self-regulated organizations, is too ambiguous and would take too long to put into place, several Wall Street veterans said in interviews with The Post.

The plan, laid out last week in the wake of the meltdown of Bear Stearns and the continuing credit crunch, calls for the Federal Reserve to gain more regulatory power – along with an empowered Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange-Euronext.

But while the executives blasted Paulson’s plan, they lauded the Treasury Secretary’s efforts as needed to begin a conversation on how to improve the patchwork of regulation pieced together over 70 years.

* Arthur Levitt, senior adviser for Carlyle Group, a powerhouse private equity group:

Creating a regulatory system that’s run on the basis of implied principles and not concrete rules is bound to have problems, said the former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

He also decried placing more regulatory power at the hands of self-regulatory organizations (SROs) such as Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange-Euronext.

“SROs are publicly traded entities that are more concerned about their stockholders,” Levitt noted.

“I think the most important issue here is that our markets which were always, always the most transparent in the world are much less so,” he said. “Our regulation just didn’t do the job. Our system failed us.”

* Richard Bove, financial analyst at Punk Ziegel:

The sometimes churlish but well-regarded analyst told his clients and investors that they “should ignore the Treasury’s solutions because they have no relevance to today’s issues.” He argues that the plan could take 6 to 8 years to put into play and places a better chance of the market fixing itself than Paulson’s effort working.

“If the market – with the help being offered by the Federal Reserve – can solve its own problems, who needs this report and its recommendations?”

* Wayne Abernathy, executive VP at the American Bankers Association:

Plans to create a regulatory triad consisting of organizations with loosely defined missions would create confusion, he said.

“The problem with each of these uber regulators is that because the rules for them are undefined they’re going to be stepping all over each other.”

* Lyle Gramley, adviser at Stanford Washington Research Group:

Paulson’s sweeping reform, which would overhaul nearly 80 years of old oversight policies, “sounds good on paper but is not likely to succeed.”

That will hold particularly true since the outgoing Bush administration is not likely to enact fresh policy changes while a new one is set to step in next year, said the former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.

What’s more likely than his plan becoming a reality is that a dialogue about change is sparked.

Even his toughest critics admit that in light of the rapid and unexpected collapse of the markets due to pervasiveness of toxic mortgages and failure of 85-year-old investment bank Bear Stearns, proposals won’t take the place of the real reform that’s needed.

* Vincent Reinhart, scholar at Washington, DC, think tank American Enterprise Institute for Monetary Policy for Public Policy Research:

“You have to give the Treasury credit in that the existing system is too complicated.”