Whenever FINRA issues a warning about a particular type of investment, it is signaling to firms that they should review their sales practices concerning that product and to be sure that those practices are appropriate.

The irony of is that it comes at a time when the CFTC itself is being challenged for, in this instance, accounting misconduct. This is not to suggest there has been any material wrongdoing by the CFTC, though in light of the current enforcement culture, it does not seem to matter whether a failure is material or intentional. Current enforcement culture seems to be: however harsh the penalty might be, it cannot be harsh enough.

Considering the burdens Dodd-Frank imposed on the financial industry and the markets generally, it seems remarkable how little evidence exists to suggest there has been any material benefit. At this point, it is clear that central clearing has its limits (it only works for highly liquid products) and its risks (central counterparties are too big to fail and can drain liquidity from the economy). When it comes to cybersecurity, firms are motivated to address these risks with or without…

This seems to be an obvious error in the regulatory requirements, since no policy whatsoever requires a non-U.S. advisor who provides advisory services to non-U.S. clients to register simply because that advisor purchases a U.S. product. The advisory scheme is intended to regulate the relationship between the advisor and the advisor's client, both of whom operate outside the United States. There is no logic in applying it just because an advisor purchases a product that has a U.S. nexus.