穿越贸易:美国证券交易委员会拟议监管制度的法律经济学分析

Xiang Cai
{"title":"穿越贸易:美国证券交易委员会拟议监管制度的法律经济学分析","authors":"Xiang Cai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.666962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Note, being the first comprehensive critique of the SEC's Reproposed Regulation NMS, tries to evaluate the core Trade-Through Rule from an interdisciplinary perspective, expose some of the problems that can arise as a consequence of the rule and expound on certain approaches which may offer better alternatives. To be sure, the newly reproposed Regulation NMS scores many strong points in making regulations more align with the evolving market realities. Even the much criticized trade-through rule reflects laudable efforts by the SEC to reconcile divergent interests of various market constituents. Nevertheless, the unbalanced competitive strengths of NYSE, which holds the largest liquidity pool and offers best opportunities for price improvement but lags behind in terms of fast execution and other dimensions of execution quality, would make SEC's balancing act of engrafting flexible exceptions on a rigid best price rule untenable to improving liquidity and price discovery, and unappealing to electronic markets competing on multiple dimensions of execution quality. In light of a new environment where investors now demand more than low execution costs and markets compete not just on the basis of price, an all encompassing standard of best execution would be better suited, to balancing multidimensional needs of investors with a necessary degree of uniformity in regulating a broker's duty to seek best price across markets. The bottom line is that a piecemeal approach within the confine of the old NMS framework and without the recognition of changing governance structures and evolving economic function of stock exchanges will never prove to be satisfactory and the time has ripened to a point where the SEC should reassess its role in market regulation before articulating a new set of guidelines for the future of U.S. securities market.","PeriodicalId":336554,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Securities Law","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treading Through Trade-Through: A Law and Economics Analysis of Sec Proposed Regulation Nms\",\"authors\":\"Xiang Cai\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.666962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Note, being the first comprehensive critique of the SEC's Reproposed Regulation NMS, tries to evaluate the core Trade-Through Rule from an interdisciplinary perspective, expose some of the problems that can arise as a consequence of the rule and expound on certain approaches which may offer better alternatives. To be sure, the newly reproposed Regulation NMS scores many strong points in making regulations more align with the evolving market realities. Even the much criticized trade-through rule reflects laudable efforts by the SEC to reconcile divergent interests of various market constituents. Nevertheless, the unbalanced competitive strengths of NYSE, which holds the largest liquidity pool and offers best opportunities for price improvement but lags behind in terms of fast execution and other dimensions of execution quality, would make SEC's balancing act of engrafting flexible exceptions on a rigid best price rule untenable to improving liquidity and price discovery, and unappealing to electronic markets competing on multiple dimensions of execution quality. In light of a new environment where investors now demand more than low execution costs and markets compete not just on the basis of price, an all encompassing standard of best execution would be better suited, to balancing multidimensional needs of investors with a necessary degree of uniformity in regulating a broker's duty to seek best price across markets. The bottom line is that a piecemeal approach within the confine of the old NMS framework and without the recognition of changing governance structures and evolving economic function of stock exchanges will never prove to be satisfactory and the time has ripened to a point where the SEC should reassess its role in market regulation before articulating a new set of guidelines for the future of U.S. securities market.\",\"PeriodicalId\":336554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Securities Law\",\"volume\":\"133 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Securities Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.666962\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Securities Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.666962","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

作为对美国证券交易委员会(SEC)重新提议的监管NMS的第一个全面批评,该说明试图从跨学科的角度评估核心贸易通过规则,揭示了该规则可能产生的一些问题,并阐述了可能提供更好替代方案的某些方法。可以肯定的是,新修订的NMS法规在使法规更符合不断变化的市场现实方面取得了许多优势。即使是饱受批评的交易通则也反映了SEC为调和不同市场组成部分的不同利益所做的值得称赞的努力。然而,纽交所拥有最大的流动性池,为价格改善提供了最佳机会,但在快速执行和执行质量的其他维度上落后,其不平衡的竞争优势将使SEC在僵化的最佳价格规则上插入灵活例外的平衡行为无法改善流动性和价格发现,对在执行质量的多个维度上竞争的电子市场也没有吸引力。鉴于现在的新环境,投资者要求的不仅仅是低执行成本,市场的竞争也不仅仅是基于价格,一个全面的最佳执行标准将更适合于平衡投资者的多维需求,并在监管经纪商在市场上寻求最佳价格的责任方面保持必要的一致性。底线是,在旧的NMS框架的限制下,没有认识到不断变化的治理结构和证券交易所不断发展的经济功能,零敲碎打的方法永远不会令人满意,时机已经成熟,证交会应该重新评估其在市场监管中的作用,然后为美国证券市场的未来制定一套新的指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treading Through Trade-Through: A Law and Economics Analysis of Sec Proposed Regulation Nms
The Note, being the first comprehensive critique of the SEC's Reproposed Regulation NMS, tries to evaluate the core Trade-Through Rule from an interdisciplinary perspective, expose some of the problems that can arise as a consequence of the rule and expound on certain approaches which may offer better alternatives. To be sure, the newly reproposed Regulation NMS scores many strong points in making regulations more align with the evolving market realities. Even the much criticized trade-through rule reflects laudable efforts by the SEC to reconcile divergent interests of various market constituents. Nevertheless, the unbalanced competitive strengths of NYSE, which holds the largest liquidity pool and offers best opportunities for price improvement but lags behind in terms of fast execution and other dimensions of execution quality, would make SEC's balancing act of engrafting flexible exceptions on a rigid best price rule untenable to improving liquidity and price discovery, and unappealing to electronic markets competing on multiple dimensions of execution quality. In light of a new environment where investors now demand more than low execution costs and markets compete not just on the basis of price, an all encompassing standard of best execution would be better suited, to balancing multidimensional needs of investors with a necessary degree of uniformity in regulating a broker's duty to seek best price across markets. The bottom line is that a piecemeal approach within the confine of the old NMS framework and without the recognition of changing governance structures and evolving economic function of stock exchanges will never prove to be satisfactory and the time has ripened to a point where the SEC should reassess its role in market regulation before articulating a new set of guidelines for the future of U.S. securities market.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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