是时候重新思考“老练的投资者”了

Peter Morris
{"title":"是时候重新思考“老练的投资者”了","authors":"Peter Morris","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2653399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Policymakers need to change the way they think about so-called “sophisticated investors.” The way they think about these organizations now disenfranchises the millions of ordinary people these big investors represent and makes it literally impossible to hold such big investors to account. This creates a dangerous law at the heart of the way financial markets are organized. This is not just abstract musing: it is demonstrably leading to poor outcomes for the ordinary people who depend on big investors. The good news is that policymakers can make a difference by applying a simple principle to “sophisticated investors”: accountability. It need not cost a lot or involve a lot of bureaucracy. They must demand that big investors, and the fund managers they hire, disclose more to the public. What they disclose must allow (truly) independent outsiders to analyze how well the big investors have performed, including how cost-effective they are. Anyone who believes in markets knows that harnessing people’s self-interest helps to make markets work. If policymakers choose to enfranchise the rest of society, they will be doing just that. Vested interests – including much of the financial services sector, many big investors, and even some policymakers – will call this idea outlandish. Some will portray it as an attack on financial markets. Even observers with no vested interest may worry that it will damage markets or the economy or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. An 80-year-old parallel shows the way. This change in approach would help to ensure that financial markets serve society as a whole, rather than just the people who work in them.","PeriodicalId":252294,"journal":{"name":"Household Financial Planning eJournal","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time to Rethink the 'Sophisticated Investor'\",\"authors\":\"Peter Morris\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2653399\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Policymakers need to change the way they think about so-called “sophisticated investors.” The way they think about these organizations now disenfranchises the millions of ordinary people these big investors represent and makes it literally impossible to hold such big investors to account. This creates a dangerous law at the heart of the way financial markets are organized. This is not just abstract musing: it is demonstrably leading to poor outcomes for the ordinary people who depend on big investors. The good news is that policymakers can make a difference by applying a simple principle to “sophisticated investors”: accountability. It need not cost a lot or involve a lot of bureaucracy. They must demand that big investors, and the fund managers they hire, disclose more to the public. What they disclose must allow (truly) independent outsiders to analyze how well the big investors have performed, including how cost-effective they are. Anyone who believes in markets knows that harnessing people’s self-interest helps to make markets work. If policymakers choose to enfranchise the rest of society, they will be doing just that. Vested interests – including much of the financial services sector, many big investors, and even some policymakers – will call this idea outlandish. Some will portray it as an attack on financial markets. Even observers with no vested interest may worry that it will damage markets or the economy or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. An 80-year-old parallel shows the way. This change in approach would help to ensure that financial markets serve society as a whole, rather than just the people who work in them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":252294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Household Financial Planning eJournal\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Household Financial Planning eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2653399\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Household Financial Planning eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2653399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

政策制定者需要改变他们对所谓“老练投资者”的看法。他们看待这些组织的方式现在剥夺了这些大投资者所代表的数百万普通人的权利,使这些大投资者几乎不可能承担责任。这在金融市场组织方式的核心形成了一条危险的法则。这不仅仅是抽象的思考:对于依赖大投资者的普通人来说,这显然会导致糟糕的结果。好消息是,政策制定者可以通过对“老练的投资者”应用一个简单的原则来发挥作用:问责制。它不需要花费很多,也不需要涉及很多官僚主义。他们必须要求大投资者和他们雇佣的基金经理向公众披露更多信息。它们披露的信息必须允许(真正)独立的外部人士分析大型投资者的表现,包括它们的成本效益。任何相信市场的人都知道,利用人们的自身利益有助于市场运作。如果政策制定者选择让社会其他人获得选举权,他们就会这样做。既得利益集团——包括大部分金融服务部门、许多大投资者,甚至一些政策制定者——会称这种想法古怪。一些人将其描述为对金融市场的攻击。即使是没有既得利益的观察家也可能担心它会损害市场或经济,或者两者兼而有之。事实远非如此。一个80年前的类比说明了这一点。这种方法上的改变将有助于确保金融市场为整个社会服务,而不仅仅是为在其中工作的人服务。
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
Time to Rethink the 'Sophisticated Investor'
Policymakers need to change the way they think about so-called “sophisticated investors.” The way they think about these organizations now disenfranchises the millions of ordinary people these big investors represent and makes it literally impossible to hold such big investors to account. This creates a dangerous law at the heart of the way financial markets are organized. This is not just abstract musing: it is demonstrably leading to poor outcomes for the ordinary people who depend on big investors. The good news is that policymakers can make a difference by applying a simple principle to “sophisticated investors”: accountability. It need not cost a lot or involve a lot of bureaucracy. They must demand that big investors, and the fund managers they hire, disclose more to the public. What they disclose must allow (truly) independent outsiders to analyze how well the big investors have performed, including how cost-effective they are. Anyone who believes in markets knows that harnessing people’s self-interest helps to make markets work. If policymakers choose to enfranchise the rest of society, they will be doing just that. Vested interests – including much of the financial services sector, many big investors, and even some policymakers – will call this idea outlandish. Some will portray it as an attack on financial markets. Even observers with no vested interest may worry that it will damage markets or the economy or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. An 80-year-old parallel shows the way. This change in approach would help to ensure that financial markets serve society as a whole, rather than just the people who work in them.
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
The Evolution of Financial Services in the Digital Age Investor Experience and Portfolio Choice New Frontiers of Robo-Advising: Consumption, Saving, Debt Management, and Taxes ETF Heartbeat Trades, Tax Efficiencies, and Clienteles: The Role of Taxes in the Flow Migration from Active Mutual Funds to ETFs Perceived Financial Preparedness, Saving Habits, and Financial Security
×
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