美国证券交易委员会继续寻求经纪交易商和投资顾问的统一护理标准

Carl B. Wilkerson
{"title":"美国证券交易委员会继续寻求经纪交易商和投资顾问的统一护理标准","authors":"Carl B. Wilkerson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2387032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This document reviews the latest chapter in the long-running and continually evolving debate over the appropriate standard of care for broker-dealers and investments advisers under the federal securities laws. Following the SEC’s report to Congress under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) of its Study Regarding a Harmonized Standard of Care for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers in January 2012. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published a Request for Data and Information (RFDI) in March 2013 that elicits input on the costs and burdens of several hypothetical approaches to harmonizing the standards of care governing broker-dealers and investment advisers. This material will highlight the SEC’s Request for Data and Information, summarize public input, and provide context within which to evaluate the FRDI in in view of the many stages of the regulatory examination of broker-dealer and investment adviser standards of care. Collectively, this information should provide a roadmap for evaluating the status of a harmonized standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers.Many catalysts for change have contributed to this latest regulatory development on a standard of care, including regulatory solutions galvanized by profound economic turmoil, and competing industry and regulatory initiatives. The document reviews these agents for change that ultimately led to a congressionally mandated SEC study on a harmonized broker-dealer and investment adviser standard of care in the Dodd-Frank Act. The material also charts regulatory and industry positions, addresses various regulatory and legislative solutions that functioned as substantive preludes to the Dodd-Frank Act and provides a framework of statutory and regulatory background.","PeriodicalId":271630,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Enforcement by Public Regulators (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The SEC's Continuing Quest for a Harmonized Standard of Care Governing Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers\",\"authors\":\"Carl B. Wilkerson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2387032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This document reviews the latest chapter in the long-running and continually evolving debate over the appropriate standard of care for broker-dealers and investments advisers under the federal securities laws. Following the SEC’s report to Congress under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) of its Study Regarding a Harmonized Standard of Care for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers in January 2012. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published a Request for Data and Information (RFDI) in March 2013 that elicits input on the costs and burdens of several hypothetical approaches to harmonizing the standards of care governing broker-dealers and investment advisers. This material will highlight the SEC’s Request for Data and Information, summarize public input, and provide context within which to evaluate the FRDI in in view of the many stages of the regulatory examination of broker-dealer and investment adviser standards of care. Collectively, this information should provide a roadmap for evaluating the status of a harmonized standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers.Many catalysts for change have contributed to this latest regulatory development on a standard of care, including regulatory solutions galvanized by profound economic turmoil, and competing industry and regulatory initiatives. The document reviews these agents for change that ultimately led to a congressionally mandated SEC study on a harmonized broker-dealer and investment adviser standard of care in the Dodd-Frank Act. The material also charts regulatory and industry positions, addresses various regulatory and legislative solutions that functioned as substantive preludes to the Dodd-Frank Act and provides a framework of statutory and regulatory background.\",\"PeriodicalId\":271630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CGN: Enforcement by Public Regulators (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CGN: Enforcement by Public Regulators (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2387032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Enforcement by Public Regulators (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2387032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文回顾了联邦证券法下经纪自营商和投资顾问的适当关注标准这一长期且不断演变的辩论的最新章节。2012年1月,美国证券交易委员会根据《2010年多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案》(“多德-弗兰克法案”)向国会提交了《关于经纪交易商和投资顾问协调照顾标准的研究报告》。美国证券交易委员会(“SEC”)于2013年3月发布了一份数据和信息请求(RFDI),征求了关于协调经纪自营商和投资顾问的护理标准的几种假设方法的成本和负担的意见。本材料将重点介绍美国证券交易委员会对数据和信息的要求,总结公众意见,并根据经纪自营商和投资顾问关注标准的监管审查的多个阶段,提供评估FRDI的背景。总的来说,这些信息应该为评估经纪自营商和投资顾问的统一护理标准的状况提供一个路线图。许多变革的催化剂促成了这一关于护理标准的最新监管发展,包括由深刻的经济动荡引发的监管解决方案,以及相互竞争的行业和监管举措。该文件回顾了这些促成变革的因素,这些变革最终导致了国会授权SEC对《多德-弗兰克法案》(Dodd-Frank Act)中经纪自营商和投资顾问的协调标准进行研究。该材料还列出了监管和行业立场,阐述了作为《多德-弗兰克法案》实质性前奏的各种监管和立法解决方案,并提供了法定和监管背景的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The SEC's Continuing Quest for a Harmonized Standard of Care Governing Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers
This document reviews the latest chapter in the long-running and continually evolving debate over the appropriate standard of care for broker-dealers and investments advisers under the federal securities laws. Following the SEC’s report to Congress under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) of its Study Regarding a Harmonized Standard of Care for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers in January 2012. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published a Request for Data and Information (RFDI) in March 2013 that elicits input on the costs and burdens of several hypothetical approaches to harmonizing the standards of care governing broker-dealers and investment advisers. This material will highlight the SEC’s Request for Data and Information, summarize public input, and provide context within which to evaluate the FRDI in in view of the many stages of the regulatory examination of broker-dealer and investment adviser standards of care. Collectively, this information should provide a roadmap for evaluating the status of a harmonized standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers.Many catalysts for change have contributed to this latest regulatory development on a standard of care, including regulatory solutions galvanized by profound economic turmoil, and competing industry and regulatory initiatives. The document reviews these agents for change that ultimately led to a congressionally mandated SEC study on a harmonized broker-dealer and investment adviser standard of care in the Dodd-Frank Act. The material also charts regulatory and industry positions, addresses various regulatory and legislative solutions that functioned as substantive preludes to the Dodd-Frank Act and provides a framework of statutory and regulatory background.
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