The Trouble with Investment Banking: Cluelessness, Not Greed

Abstract

We assume that the set of marketable financial instruments can be divided into two distinct categories: (1) easy-to-price and (2) difficult-to-price, and then isolate two behavioral effects as most important with respect to securities trading in difficult-to-price securities; specifically, the house-money-effect and the earned-money-effect. It is shown that these behavioral effects discourage profitable investment in research effort.

We then argue that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) safe harbor should not apply to investment banks that issue/underwrite difficult-to-price securities. We also advocate for the return of the private investment banking partnership as the most sensible way in which to get the relevant behavioral incentives right vis-à-vis the bank and its investor-clients and propose two regulatory measures designed to induce such banks to structure themselves as private partnerships where they are otherwise free to publicly incorporate.

Finally, we suggest that fiduciary responsibilities owed to investors by investment advisers/broker-dealers transacting in these kinds of securities must be strengthened/weakened, respectively. Current reform proposals blur the distinction between these two financial actors. We argue that the line must be drawn as bright as possible in order to make as salient as possible to investors in whom they can repose their trust and confidence. Moreover, instead of passing legislation designed to eliminate or reduce proprietary transactions, this Article argues for just the opposite – that legislation be passed to make the incentives facing broker-dealers and registered investment advisers (and investment banks as well) look more like those of the typical hedge fund – not less.

Keywords: Behavioral Finance, Investment Banking Partnerships, Proprietary Trading, Volcker Rule

JEL Classification: K22, G24