How to Improve Retail Investor Protection After the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
University of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 10-24
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, Vol. 13, No. 59, 2010
48 Pages Posted: 29 Mar 2010 Last revised: 2 Mar 2011
Date Written: August 2, 2010
Abstract
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gives the Securities and Exchange Commission the authority to deal with two issues especially important to retail investors. First, section 913 requires the SEC to conduct a six-month study on the effectiveness of existing standards of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and specifically authorizes the SEC to establish a fiduciary duty for brokers and dealers. Second, section 921 grants the SEC the authority to prohibit the use of predispute arbitration agreements that would require investors to arbitrate future disputes arising under the federal securities laws and regulations or the rules of a self-regulatory organization.
What has been overlooked in the debate over retail investor protection is the interconnectedness of these two provisions. Debate over retail investor protection after Dodd-Frank must consider these two issues together in order to achieve the goal of better retail investor protection. I make three principal arguments:
First, I argue that broker-dealers and investment advisers should be held to standards of care and competence based on professionalism, rather than fiduciary duty.
Second, I propose, for adoption by the SEC, federal professional standards of competence and care for broker-dealers and investment advisers.
Third, I argue that SEC adoption of standards of care will not create any additional federal remedies for investors because it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will create a private damages remedy for their breach. If the SEC prohibits mandatory securities arbitration of claims based on federal securities law and SEC and SRO rules, the ability of retail investors, particularly those with small claims, to recover damages for careless and incompetent investment advice may be substantially reduced.
Keywords: Broker-Dealer, Investment Adviser, Securities Arbitration, Financial Regulatory Reform, Fiduciary Duty
JEL Classification: G24, G28, K22
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Beyond Disclosure: The Case for Banning Contingent Commissions
-
Does Soft Dollar Brokerage Benefit Portfolio Investors: Agency Problem or Solution?
By Stephen Horan and D. Bruce Johnsen
-
The Impact of Soft Dollars on Market Equilibrium and Investors' Profits
By Gilad Livne and Brett Trueman
-
The Surprising Virtues of the New Financial Privacy Law
By Peter Swire
-
By Mark Abrahamson, Tim Jenkinson, ...
-
The Small Laws: Eliot Spitzer and the Way to Insurance Market Reform
-
Smart Mortgages, Privacy and the Regulatory Possibility of Infomediation
-
Are Existing Stock Broker Standards Sufficient? Principles, Rules and Fiduciary Duties