Section 11(d) of the Exchange Act is supposed to be a consumer protection measure. (A broader discussion of Section 11(d) can be found in the .) That the SEC and the FRB are willing to do away with it, even under special circumstances, may be an indication that the provision is not really necessary under any circumstances. Section 11(d) dates to the original adoption of the Exchange Act in 1934. There was no FINRA; there were no suitability rules; there was no Regulation Best Interest. The…

FINRA Rule 2010, as to just and equitable principles of trade, has lost all meaning. Every violation of any SEC or FINRA Rule has become an independent violation of FINRA Rule 2010, as well as likely a supervisory violation. FINRA should charge Rule 2010 only when a broker-dealer has done something clearly wrong as to which no other rule applies. Otherwise, Rule 2010 should just have its name changed to "Prohibition on Breaking Any Other Rule." That way, whenever a firm did break some other…

Commissioner Peirce delivers an intellectually powerful argument that bucks the go-with-the-flow on CAT. She has consistently argued that CAT is well-intentioned but ill-advised. See, e.g., .

Living in a world full of extremely sophisticated data thieves that may be backed by sovereign nations, it seems imprudent to collect and aggregate so much vital financial data in one place. Government agencies and SROs are not immune from hacking and CAT will be a treasure trove for digital…

Although the paper is written in a very measured tone, it is highly critical of Dodd-Frank's mandatory clearing requirements both in terms of the manner in which the requirements were adopted and in terms of the result of the requirements. As to the former, the author notes that "it has never been clearly articulated [why there] is a need for mandatory client clearing." As to results, the author points out that the end result of the mandatory clearing requirement has been to substantially…