PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

FINRA's Profits Should Come With a Price

| No Comments


Last Friday, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the frontline regulator of securities firms, reported a $10.5 million profit for 2012. As the profit suggests, FINRA is not a typical regulatory agency. It is quasi-private, which means it can do things like bank its profits and pay its CEO $2.25 million. It's good that FINRA is not losing millions, as it did in 2008 when it lost nearly $700 million largely because of losses on its risky investment portfolio. Nevertheless, FINRA's profits and losses remind us that it should not enjoy the same liberties that a government regulator does.

FINRA is subject to some degree of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it is still a powerful regulator that, in many ways, looks a lot like an arm of the government. FINRA membership is legally required for most broker-dealers. FINRA exercises a lot of power over member firms and employees. In 2012, for example, it kicked 30 firms and hundreds of individuals out of the securities industry and imposed approximately $69 million in fines. It can use those fines for capital expenditures and regulatory projects, which gives it an unseemly incentive to impose large fines.

The exercise of government-like power by a non-governmental body raises concerns. FINRA needs to be reminded that it is not on equal footing with government regulators, who are politically accountable for their decisions. Unfortunately, the Securities and Exchange Commission does not always keep FINRA in check. Last month, for example, the commission gave FINRA greater authority to publish its disciplinary proceedings, including complaints that have not yet been adjudicated. More transparency sounds good, but potentially career-ending allegations by a regulator that is not part of the government should be tested before they become public. Instead, even complaints that have been withdrawn or dismissed will be posted. Any regulator should be careful in publicizing mere allegations of wrongdoing, but quasi-private regulators that exercise governmental powers should be even more constrained.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.