In my paper, Beyond Efficiency in Securities Regulation, recently made available on SSRN, I argue that the emergence of algorithmic trading calls into question the foundation underpinning today’s securities laws: the understanding that securities prices reflect all available information in the market. Securities regulation has long looked to the Efficient Capital Markets Hypothesis (ECMH) for theoretical validation to ground its most central tenets like mandatory disclosure, the Fraud-on-the-Market presumption in Rule 10b-5 litigation, as well as the architecture of today’s system of interconnected exchanges. It is easy to understand why. Laws that make markets more informative should also make them better at communicating with investors and in allocating capital across the economy. In this paper, I suggest that this connection between informational and allocative efficiencies can no longer be so readily assumed in the age of algorithmic trading. In other words, even as algorithmic trading pushes markets to achieve ever-greater levels of informational efficiency, able to process vast swathes of data in milliseconds, understanding what this information means for the purposes of capital allocation seems ever more uncertain. Recognizing that notions of informational efficiency are growing disconnected from the market’s ability to also interpret what this information signifies for capital allocation, this paper proposes a thoroughgoing rethinking about the centrality of efficiency economics in regulatory design.
Archive for the ‘Securities Regulation’ Category
On January 31, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a no-action letter to Schlumberger Ltd. (“Schlumberger” or “the Company”), permitting the Company not to file a preliminary proxy statement under Rule 14a-6(a) when the only matters to be acted upon by stockholders at the Company’s annual meeting were either specifically excluded from the filing requirements by Rule 14a-6(a) or were certain ordinary and routine matters required to be submitted for stockholder approval under Curaçao law on an annual basis.
As a practicing securities lawyer for more than thirty years, I have in the past advised boards of directors, including mutual fund boards, and I am well acquainted with the important work that you do. I also understand the essential role that independent directors play in ensuring good corporate governance. As fiduciaries, you play a critical role in setting the appropriate tone at the top and overseeing the funds’ business. Thus, I commend the Mutual Fund Directors Forum’s efforts in providing a platform for independent mutual fund directors to share ideas and best practices. Improving fund governance is vital to investor protection and maintaining the integrity of our financial markets.
On March 12, the SEC issued a 400-page rule proposal that, if adopted as proposed, would impose a multitude of new compliance requirements on The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”), The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and ICE Clear Europe. Since these clearing agencies play a fundamental role in the options, stock, debt, U.S. Treasuries, mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps markets, the proposed requirements have important implications for banks, broker-dealers and other U.S. securities market participants, as well as securities exchanges, alternative trading systems and other trading venues.
Greg [Tanzer, ASIC Commissioner] suggested that I talk about my perspectives on international cooperation in the enforcement context, as well as what we at the SEC are doing to try to make our own enforcement program even more robust and responsive to the issues presented by interconnected and fast moving markets. I am happy to do that. But, before I do, I would like to share a couple of thoughts on the topic of your first session—“Enforcement—does the punishment fit the crime?”
Much of my professional background has been in enforcement and strong enforcement was one of my primary focuses when I became Chair of the SEC almost a year ago and it remains so. Vigorous enforcement of the securities laws in the United States, in Australia and around the world is obviously a critical component of our investor protection mission.
On March 10, 2014, in a no-action letter to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) signaled its position that shareholders seeking to submit proposals for inclusion in the proxy materials of newly-public companies are not exempt from the requirement in Rule 14a-8(b)(1) that proponents must hold the requisite amount of stock in the company for at least one year by the date on which they have submitted their proposal.
Three years ago we petitioned the SEC to modernize the beneficial ownership reporting rules under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (see our rulemaking petition, our memos of March 7, 2011, April 15, 2011, March 3, 2008 and our article in the Harvard Business Law Review). Since we filed our petition, activist hedge funds have grown more brazen in exploiting the existing reporting rules to the disadvantage of ordinary investors.
International engagement has long been a fundamental aspect of effective capital markets regulation. As Kathy [Casey] noted in a speech she gave while Commissioner in 2007: “If we, as regulators, are to remain effective and relevant in meeting our mission of protecting investors, fostering capital formation and maintaining competitive, fair and orderly markets, we will need to be more nimble and responsive to market developments and rely more on cooperation and collaboration with our international counterparts.” 
It has become clear to me over these past few months that at no time in the Commission’s history have we been more engaged with the international community or more involved in collaborative workstreams with our fellow regulators from around the globe.
Good morning. I am very honored to be giving the welcoming remarks and to offer a few perspectives from my first 10 months as Chair. Looking back at remarks made by former Chairs at this event, the expectation seems to be for me to talk about the “State of the SEC.” I will happily oblige on behalf of this great and critical agency.
In 1972, 42 years ago at the very first SEC Speaks, there were approximately 1,500 SEC employees charged with regulating the activities of 5,000 broker-dealers, 3,500 investment advisers, and 1,500 investment companies.
Today the markets have grown and changed dramatically, and the SEC has significantly expanded responsibilities. There are now about 4,200 employees—not nearly enough to stretch across a landscape that requires us to regulate more than 25,000 market participants, including broker-dealers, investment advisers, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, municipal advisors, clearing agents, transfer agents, and 18 exchanges. We also oversee the important functions of self-regulatory organizations and boards such as FASB, FINRA, MSRB, PCAOB, and SIPC. Only SIPC and FINRA’s predecessor, the NASD, even existed back in 1972.
The appointment of Supreme Court justices is a politically-charged process and the “ideology” (or “judicial philosophy”) of the nominees is perceived as playing a potentially relevant role in their future decision-making. It is fairly easy to intuit that ideology somehow enters the analysis with respect to politically divisive issues such as abortion and procreative rights, sexual conduct, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, gun control, procedural protections for the accused in criminal cases, and governmental powers. Many studies have tackled the question of the relevance of the ideology of the justices or appellate judges on these issues, often finding a correlation between policy preferences and decisions.