Hedge Fund Regulation

R. Dodd
{"title":"Hedge Fund Regulation","authors":"R. Dodd","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1652502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The debate over hedge fund regulation suffers from several shortcomings. One is that the opponents to regulating such private investment companies have stuck steadfastly to a short list of polished communications ‘talking points’. One is that hedge funds are beneficial because they disperse risk in the financial system. Two, they are beneficial because they provide liquidity to financial markets. Three, bank and other regulated financial firms will discipline hedge fund their role of prime brokers. While such sound-bites may be good for improving public relations, they often do not provide legitimate content for an informed public debate. This policy brief evaluates these talking points.","PeriodicalId":10000,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1652502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The debate over hedge fund regulation suffers from several shortcomings. One is that the opponents to regulating such private investment companies have stuck steadfastly to a short list of polished communications ‘talking points’. One is that hedge funds are beneficial because they disperse risk in the financial system. Two, they are beneficial because they provide liquidity to financial markets. Three, bank and other regulated financial firms will discipline hedge fund their role of prime brokers. While such sound-bites may be good for improving public relations, they often do not provide legitimate content for an informed public debate. This policy brief evaluates these talking points.
对冲基金监管
围绕对冲基金监管的辩论存在几个缺陷。一个原因是,反对监管此类私人投资公司的人士一直固执地坚持一份简短的沟通“谈话要点”清单。其一,对冲基金是有益的,因为它们分散了金融体系中的风险。第二,它们是有益的,因为它们为金融市场提供了流动性。第三,银行和其他受监管的金融公司将约束对冲基金,使其不再扮演主要经纪人的角色。虽然这样的言论可能有利于改善公共关系,但它们往往不能为知情的公众辩论提供合法的内容。本政策摘要对这些话题进行了评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信