Public and Private Enforcement of Securities Laws: Resource-Based Evidence

H. Jackson, M. Roe
{"title":"Public and Private Enforcement of Securities Laws: Resource-Based Evidence","authors":"H. Jackson, M. Roe","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1000086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ascertaining which enforcement mechanisms work to protect investors has been both a focus of recent work in academic finance and an issue for policy-making at international development agencies. According to recent academic work, private enforcement of investor protection via both disclosure and private liability rules goes hand in hand with financial market development, but public enforcement fails to correlate with financial development and, hence, is unlikely to facilitate it. Our results confirm the disclosure result but reverse the results on both liability standards and public enforcement. We use securities regulators' resources to proxy for regulatory intensity of the securities regulator. When we do, financial depth regularly, significantly, and robustly correlates with stronger public enforcement. In horse races between these resource-based measures of public enforcement intensity and the most common measures of private enforcement, public enforcement is overall as important as disclosure in explaining financial market outcomes around the world and more important than private liability rules. Hence, policymakers who reject public enforcement as useful for financial market development are ignoring the best currently available evidence.","PeriodicalId":336554,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Securities Law","volume":"158 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"440","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Securities Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1000086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 440

Abstract

Ascertaining which enforcement mechanisms work to protect investors has been both a focus of recent work in academic finance and an issue for policy-making at international development agencies. According to recent academic work, private enforcement of investor protection via both disclosure and private liability rules goes hand in hand with financial market development, but public enforcement fails to correlate with financial development and, hence, is unlikely to facilitate it. Our results confirm the disclosure result but reverse the results on both liability standards and public enforcement. We use securities regulators' resources to proxy for regulatory intensity of the securities regulator. When we do, financial depth regularly, significantly, and robustly correlates with stronger public enforcement. In horse races between these resource-based measures of public enforcement intensity and the most common measures of private enforcement, public enforcement is overall as important as disclosure in explaining financial market outcomes around the world and more important than private liability rules. Hence, policymakers who reject public enforcement as useful for financial market development are ignoring the best currently available evidence.
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
证券法的公共和私人执法:基于资源的证据
确定哪些执法机制能够保护投资者,既是学术金融学最近工作的一个重点,也是国际发展机构决策的一个问题。根据最近的学术工作,通过披露和私人责任规则来保护投资者的私人执行与金融市场发展密切相关,但公共执行与金融发展不相关,因此不太可能促进金融发展。我们的研究结果证实了披露结果,但在责任标准和公共执法方面的结果却相反。我们用证券监管机构的资源来代表证券监管机构的监管强度。当我们这样做时,金融深度与更强有力的公共执法经常、显著和强有力地相关。在这些以资源为基础的公共执法强度指标与最常见的私人执法指标之间的比拼中,在解释全球金融市场结果方面,公共执法总体上与披露同等重要,比私人责任规则更重要。因此,拒绝公共执法有助于金融市场发展的政策制定者忽视了目前可获得的最佳证据。
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
How Should a Firm Go Public? A Dynamic Model of the Choice between Fixed-Price Offerings and Auctions in Ipos and Privatizations Do we need a European 'National Market System'? Competition, Arbitrage, and Suboptimal Executions Emergency Short Selling Restrictions in the Course of the Financial Crisis Litigation Governance: Taking Accountability Seriously The SEC and the Madoff Scandal: Three Narratives in Search of a Story
×
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