Get 40% Off
⚠ Earnings Alert! Which stocks are poised to surge?
See the stocks on our ProPicks radar. These strategies gained 19.7% year-to-date.
Unlock full list

U.S. targets '08 crisis trader conflicts in new rule, decade after 1st try

Published 01/25/2023, 10:03 AM
Updated 01/25/2023, 01:06 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: People exit the headquarters of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 12, 2021. Picture taken May 12, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

By Douglas Gillison

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Wall Street's top regulator on Wednesday unanimously voted to propose a rule barring traders in asset-backed securities from betting against the very assets they sell to investors, behavior that became infamous in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis.

The rule is among the last to be adopted under the landmark Dodd Frank Wall Street reform legislation of 2010, according to SEC officials. Those reforms sought to address the root causes of the mortgage crisis. An earlier version of the conflicts rule first proposed in 2011 was never finalized.

The sweeping 2010 legislation, named for its sponsors - Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts - aimed to protect investors and taxpayers by preventing the buildup of risk and liability in the financial system. 

Among other things, it contained financial stability measures governing banks deemed "too big to fail" and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In the years after Dodd-Frank's enactment, Democratic lawmakers complained that the SEC had failed to meet a 270-day deadline to issue a rule implementing Dodd Frank's ban on betting against the same asset-backed securities traders sell to investors.

In unveiling the proposal on Wednesday, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler acknowledged this was an "unfinished step" in post-crisis reform. The proposal is now subject to public comment for at least 60 days.

SEC officials say it would provide exceptions for legitimate activities, such as hedging to mitigate risk, market-making and meeting liquidity commitments.

But at a public hearing ahead of the vote, Republican members of the commission raised concerns that the proposal in its current form might inhibit legitimate activity, forshadowing likely criticism from industry groups.

Republican Commissioner Hester Peirce, a critic of the commission's current enforcement strategies, said the proposal "cries out for more care in its design," adding that the rule could have a chilling effect on market participants who are unclear of when and the prohibition applies.

According to SEC officials, traders who disclosed bets contrary to clients' investments would still run afoul of the rule, something Peirce suggested should be allowed "to cure at least certain types of material conflicts."

Better Markets, an advocacy organization that promotes more strict financial sector regulation, welcomed Wednesday's rule proposal but vowed to study it.

Stephen Hall, Better Markets' legal director, said traders' conflicts of interest drove the proliferation of sales of worthless mortgage-backed securities, thereby worsening the financial crisis and constituting "some of the most outrageous abuses we saw."

Without citing prominent recent examples of such conflicts of interest in the asset-backed securities market, SEC officials said the conflicts rule was needed to remove the opportunity and incentive for such conduct.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: People exit the headquarters of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 12, 2021. Picture taken May 12, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

In 2010, Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) agreed to pay a record $550 million penalty to resolve SEC allegations that it had misled investors. A Senate investigation later detailed how Goldman had marketed mortgaged-backed securities to investors without disclosing that the investment bank or others had placed substantial bets that these assets would lose value.

A Goldman representative declined to comment on specific steps the bank has taken in the intervening years to prevent such conduct.

Latest comments

The root cause of the GFC was too much government regulation. Lawmakers are making things worse by piling more on top of what’s already there.
"In the ensuing years, Democratic lawmakers complained that the SEC had failed to meet a 270-day deadline to issue a rule implementing Dodd Frank's Section 621."  --  This is something Trump should've gotten done during his term.
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.