证券业的合法性:绩效监管的作用

Manning G. Warren
{"title":"证券业的合法性:绩效监管的作用","authors":"Manning G. Warren","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1621814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"State regulators utilize merit review to protect investors, issuers, and the marketplace by focusing on the substantive quality of securities offerings. In this article, the author addresses the evolution of the dual regulatory system and the resulting roles of the state and federal securities laws. The author responds to criticism that the state and federal schemes are duplicative, not complementary, by explaining the differing scopes and philosophies of state and federal securities laws. Expanding on the role of state regulators, the author elaborates on the importance of their accommodation of local interests at the state level in preserving cooperative federalism. Further, he recognizes the need for overlap in a dual regulatory system, due to shifts in regulatory intensity at both levels and to the evolving regulatory atmosphere. Because of a trend in federal deregulation and a corresponding intensified reliance on state regulators, the author dispels the duplicative coverage argument. The author also questions the argument that capital formation is impeded by merit regulation, providing evidence that states with reputations for strict merit regulation have not experienced adverse effects on capital formation. Although he recognizes the utility of the merit regulation debate, the author concludes by acknowledging the positive effects of state merit review: protective regulation and the promotion of capital formation.","PeriodicalId":309706,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legitimacy in the Securities Industry: The Role of Merit Regulation\",\"authors\":\"Manning G. Warren\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1621814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"State regulators utilize merit review to protect investors, issuers, and the marketplace by focusing on the substantive quality of securities offerings. In this article, the author addresses the evolution of the dual regulatory system and the resulting roles of the state and federal securities laws. The author responds to criticism that the state and federal schemes are duplicative, not complementary, by explaining the differing scopes and philosophies of state and federal securities laws. Expanding on the role of state regulators, the author elaborates on the importance of their accommodation of local interests at the state level in preserving cooperative federalism. Further, he recognizes the need for overlap in a dual regulatory system, due to shifts in regulatory intensity at both levels and to the evolving regulatory atmosphere. Because of a trend in federal deregulation and a corresponding intensified reliance on state regulators, the author dispels the duplicative coverage argument. The author also questions the argument that capital formation is impeded by merit regulation, providing evidence that states with reputations for strict merit regulation have not experienced adverse effects on capital formation. Although he recognizes the utility of the merit regulation debate, the author concludes by acknowledging the positive effects of state merit review: protective regulation and the promotion of capital formation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":309706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1621814\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1621814","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

国家监管机构通过关注证券发行的实质质量,利用绩效审查来保护投资者、发行人和市场。在本文中,作者阐述了双重监管体系的演变以及由此产生的州和联邦证券法的作用。作者通过解释州和联邦证券法的不同范围和理念,回应了州和联邦计划是重复的,而不是互补的批评。扩展了国家监管机构的作用,作者详细阐述了他们在国家一级适应地方利益在保持合作联邦制中的重要性。此外,他认识到由于两个级别的监管强度的变化以及不断变化的监管氛围,双重监管体系中需要重叠。由于联邦政府放松管制的趋势以及对州监管机构的相应依赖加剧,作者驳斥了重复覆盖的论点。作者还质疑资本形成受到绩效监管阻碍的观点,并提供证据表明,以严格绩效监管而闻名的州并未对资本形成产生不利影响。尽管作者承认绩效审查辩论的效用,但作者最后承认了国家绩效审查的积极影响:保护性监管和促进资本形成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Legitimacy in the Securities Industry: The Role of Merit Regulation
State regulators utilize merit review to protect investors, issuers, and the marketplace by focusing on the substantive quality of securities offerings. In this article, the author addresses the evolution of the dual regulatory system and the resulting roles of the state and federal securities laws. The author responds to criticism that the state and federal schemes are duplicative, not complementary, by explaining the differing scopes and philosophies of state and federal securities laws. Expanding on the role of state regulators, the author elaborates on the importance of their accommodation of local interests at the state level in preserving cooperative federalism. Further, he recognizes the need for overlap in a dual regulatory system, due to shifts in regulatory intensity at both levels and to the evolving regulatory atmosphere. Because of a trend in federal deregulation and a corresponding intensified reliance on state regulators, the author dispels the duplicative coverage argument. The author also questions the argument that capital formation is impeded by merit regulation, providing evidence that states with reputations for strict merit regulation have not experienced adverse effects on capital formation. Although he recognizes the utility of the merit regulation debate, the author concludes by acknowledging the positive effects of state merit review: protective regulation and the promotion of capital formation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Are M&A Lawyers Really Better? Hidden Agendas in Shareholder Voting A Right For Retirement: Unconscionable Contracts, The Right (Not) to Associate, and Citizens United Will Nasdaq's Diversity Rules Harm Investors? A Trans-Atlantic Doctrinal Orientation Made Concrete: Ohio’s First 'Modern' Business Corporation Act (1927)
×
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