No, his argument isn't fallacious, but yours is a straw man.
He is NOT saying that regulation was the problem, and he's not saying that less regulation will solve the crisis. He's saying that blaming libertarianism, free markets and "unfettered capitalism" is a fallacy - simply because the financial market is neither of those.
The crisis existed largely because existing regulations were loosened, and those that weren't were laxly enforced against people who were gaming the system. The markets in the late 1800s and 1920s were both largely libertarian, free, and unfettered -- and both failed pretty miserably, which is why we have (flawed) institutions like the SEC now.
the argument sounds very similar to communist apologetics saying: "blaming communism on the Soviet collapse is a fallacy, simply because the Soviet Union (and all the communist nations) were never real communist countries like Marx and Engels intended".
He is NOT saying that regulation was the problem, and he's not saying that less regulation will solve the crisis. He's saying that blaming libertarianism, free markets and "unfettered capitalism" is a fallacy - simply because the financial market is neither of those.