首页> 外文OA文献 >Broker-Dealers, Institutional Investors, and Fiduciary Duty: Much Ado About Nothing?
【2h】

Broker-Dealers, Institutional Investors, and Fiduciary Duty: Much Ado About Nothing?

机译:经纪交易商,机构投资者和信托义务:什么都没有做?

摘要

Under the mandate of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the SEC is soliciting public opinions on whether broker-dealers should be subject to a fiduciary duty when advising retail and institutional investors. This Article focuses on the advisability of such a proposal for institutional investors. It shows that, first, a fiduciary duty could potentially enhance broker-dealers’ standard of conduct for only a subset of institutional investors who are well capitalized, capable of assessing risks independently, and acknowledge in writing their nonreliance on broker-dealers’ advice. Thus, the benefit of fiduciary duty is much narrower than what its proponents believe. Second, institutional investors face substantial obstacles in recovering damages from brokerdealers who violate their standard of conduct in private litigation, and yet fiduciary duty would not help in this regard. In light of fiduciary duty’s negligible benefit but indeterminate cost to the financial industry, it is not a viable measure for enhancing institutional investor protection.
机译:根据2010年《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案》的授权,SEC在就建议散户和机构投资者提供咨询时,应向券商征询公众意见。本文重点关注这种建议对机构投资者的可取性。它表明,首先,受托责任可能会提高仅一部分资本充足,能够独立评估风险并书面确认不依赖经纪商建议的机构投资者的经纪商行为标准。因此,信托义务的利益比其支持者所相信的要窄得多。其次,机构投资者在追偿违反私人诉讼行为标准的经纪人经纪人时,面临巨大的障碍,而信托责任在这方面无济于事。鉴于信托义务的收益微不足道,但对金融业而言却是不确定的成本,因此,这不是加强机构投资者保护的可行措施。

著录项

  • 作者

    Bai Lynn;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号