SEC adopts rules and interpretive guidance designed to enhance and clarify the obligations of financial professionals

Michael R. Rosella, Vadim Avdeychik, Justin R. Capozzi
{"title":"SEC adopts rules and interpretive guidance designed to enhance and clarify the obligations of financial professionals","authors":"Michael R. Rosella, Vadim Avdeychik, Justin R. Capozzi","doi":"10.1108/joic-08-2019-0049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis article provides an overview of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent approval of a package of rulemakings and interpretations designed to enhance the quality and transparency of investors’ relationships with investment advisers and broker-dealers.\n\n\nDesign/Methodology/Approach\nThe article provides legal analysis for and historical context of the requirements of the SEC’s adopted rules, Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS in addition to the two separate interpretations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and the Broker-Dealer Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser.\n\n\nFindings\nThe SEC’s adopted regulatory package does not adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers but instead promulgates legal requirements and mandated disclosures in order to conform to the SEC’s perceived expectations for reasonable investors.\n\n\nPractical implications\nInvestment advisers and broker-dealers should consult with their legal counsel in assessing how and to what extent the new regulatory package is applicable to them.\n\n\nOriginality/Value\nThis article provides practical guidance from lawyers who have extensive experience with the Investment Company Act, Investment Advisers Act, and the Securities Acts.\n","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investment Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/joic-08-2019-0049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This article provides an overview of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent approval of a package of rulemakings and interpretations designed to enhance the quality and transparency of investors’ relationships with investment advisers and broker-dealers. Design/Methodology/Approach The article provides legal analysis for and historical context of the requirements of the SEC’s adopted rules, Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS in addition to the two separate interpretations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and the Broker-Dealer Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser. Findings The SEC’s adopted regulatory package does not adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers but instead promulgates legal requirements and mandated disclosures in order to conform to the SEC’s perceived expectations for reasonable investors. Practical implications Investment advisers and broker-dealers should consult with their legal counsel in assessing how and to what extent the new regulatory package is applicable to them. Originality/Value This article provides practical guidance from lawyers who have extensive experience with the Investment Company Act, Investment Advisers Act, and the Securities Acts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国证券交易委员会采用旨在加强和澄清金融专业人员义务的规则和解释性指导
本文概述了美国证券交易委员会(SEC)最近批准的一揽子规则制定和解释,旨在提高投资者与投资顾问和经纪交易商关系的质量和透明度。设计/方法/方法本文提供了SEC所采用的规则,监管最佳利益和表格CRS要求的法律分析和历史背景,以及1940年《投资顾问法》(投资顾问行为标准)下的两个独立解释;以及将经纪自营商排除在投资顾问的定义之外。美国证券交易委员会采纳的监管方案并未对经纪自营商和投资顾问采用统一的受托标准,而是颁布了法律要求和强制披露,以符合美国证券交易委员会对理性投资者的预期。实际影响投资顾问和经纪自营商在评估新的监管方案如何以及在多大程度上适用于他们时,应咨询其法律顾问。原创性/价值本文提供了具有丰富投资公司法、投资顾问法和证券法经验的律师的实践指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ESG litigation – how companies can get ready, respond and resolve claims Strengthening AML/CFT controls of digital payment token service providers in Singapore Understanding regulatory trends: digital assets & anti-Money laundering “Racing” to the IBOR transition finish line Structuring and financing private equity and venture capital transactions in Luxembourg
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1