Yearly Archives: 2021

Quantifying the High-Frequency Trading “Arms Race”

Matteo Aquilina is a member of the Secretariat at the Financial Stability Board, and a manager at the UK Financial Conduct Authority Economics Department; Eric Budish is the Steven G. Rothmeier Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business; and Peter O’Neill is a researcher at the UK Financial Conduct Authority Economics Department. This post is based on their recent paper, forthcoming in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

In the past few decades, financial markets across most major asset classes—equities, futures, treasuries, currencies, options, etc.—have transformed from human beings interacting with each other on trading floors, pits and desks, to computerized trading algorithms interacting with each other in exchange computer servers. On the whole, this transformation from humans to computers has brought clear, measurable improvements to various measures of the cost of trading and liquidity, much as information technology has brought efficiencies to many other sectors of the economy. But this transformation has also brought considerable controversy, particularly around the importance of speed in modern electronic markets.

This study uses a simple new kind of data and a simple new methodology to study the phenomenon at the center of the controversy over speed: latency arbitrage. In words, a latency arbitrage is an arbitrage opportunity that is sufficiently mechanical and obvious that capturing it is primarily a contest in speed. Conceptually, a latency arbitrage is an economic rent from symmetric public information—information that, in principle, is disseminated to the whole market simultaneously and publicly, so should not be a source of arbitrage profits.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: October 29–November 4, 2021


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of October 29–November 4, 2021.


Carbon Zero and the Board


Racial Equity Audits: A New ESG Initiative


The Current State of Human Capital Disclosure


Common Ownership, Executive Compensation, and Product Market Competition


Speech by Commissioner Roisman on Cybersecurity



ISS’ Annual Policy Survey Results


The State of U.S. Sustainability Reporting


Lucian Bebchuk and the Study of Corporate Governance


SEC Reopens Comment Period for Dodd-Frank Clawback Rule


Endogenous Choice of Stakes Under Common Ownership


Remarks by Chair Gensler Before the SIFMA Annual Meeting



Statement by Commissioners Peirce and Roisman on Shareholder Proposals


Remarks by Chair Gensler Before the Asset Management Advisory Committee

Gary Gensler is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent remarks before the Asset Management Advisory Committee. The views expressed in the post are those of Chair Gensler, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Staff.

Thank you. It is good to be with this Committee again.

I’d like to thank the members. For the past two years, you have studied and advised the Commission on a number of important issues, on top of your other responsibilities and roles.

This Committee was formed shortly before COVID-19 came to our shores. This Committee’s first recommendations had to do with the impact of the pandemic on our markets, including market structure, particularly on fixed income markets, and on the SEC’s operations, such as encouraging more electronic disclosure.

Recent recommendations tackled the important topic of diversity in the asset management industry, focusing on the underrepresentation of women and people of color in this sector.

Additionally, you offered insights into the growing field of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) assets, around which we have work streams related to issuers and asset managers.

I thought I would take this opportunity to discuss the SEC’s work related to the asset management sector.

READ MORE »

Statement by Commissioners Peirce and Roisman on Shareholder Proposals

Hester M. Peirce and Elad L. Roisman are Commissioners at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on their recent public statement. The views expressed in this post are those of Ms. Peirce and Mr. Roisman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Today the Division of Corporation Finance issued a new staff legal bulletin relating to shareholder proposals, which rescinded the last three bulletins and indicated that the staff may no longer agree that certain proposals are excludable from proxy statements under Rule 14a-8. [1] Notably, the Bulletin singles out as likely no longer excludable proposals “squarely raising human capital management issues with a broad societal impact” and proposals that “request[] companies adopt timeframes or targets to address climate change.” While it is disappointing to see these two topics highlighted for special treatment, it is not altogether surprising given current SEC priorities. Today’s Bulletin furthers the recent trend of erasing previous Commissions’ and staffs’ work and replacing it with the current Commission’s flavor-of-the-day regulatory approach.

The rationale for today’s action is a bit of a mystery. First while the bulletin lays out a case for repealing the last three bulletins, it does not fill the void left by their repeal. Specifically, it fails to address the problem those three bulletins were trying to solve, whether it still exists, and how it will be addressed going forward. For example, with respect to the significance analysis under Rule 14a-8(i)(7), the rescinded bulletins were designed to help issuers determine whether a proposal dealing with the company’s ordinary business operations is nevertheless not excludable because it raises a policy issue so significant that it transcends the day-to-day business matters of the company. With these bulletins now rescinded, how should these proposals be analyzed? In rejecting a company-specific approach in evaluating significance, the Bulletin states that the staff “will instead focus on the social policy significance of the issue that is the subject of the shareholder proposal” and “consider whether the proposal raises issues with a broad societal impact.” The Bulletin assures us that such a focus is realigned with the standard articulated by the Commission in 1976 and 1998, but the practical effect is unclear. Is the analysis simply a question of whether the proposal involves any socially significant issue? What criteria, timeframe, or proof support a finding that a topic is socially significant or has a broad societal impact? The new bulletin does not say.

READ MORE »

Mandating Disclosure of Climate-Related Financial Risk

Alexander T. Song is a Legal Fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law. This post is based on a recent paper, forthcoming in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, authored by Mr. Song; Madison Condon, Associate Professor at Boston University School of Law and an Affiliated Scholar at the Institute for Policy Integrity; Sarah Ladin, Attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity; Jack Lienke, Regulatory Policy Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity and adjunct professor at NYU School of Law; and Michael Panfil, Lead Counsel and Director of Climate Risk Strategies at Environmental Defense Fund, and lecturer at American University, Washington College of Law, and Howard University School of Law.

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance (discussed on the Forum here) and Will Corporations Deliver Value to All Stakeholders?, both by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita; For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); and Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy—A Reply to Professor Rock by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here).

Climate change will profoundly affect the institutions that undergird modern society and will challenge almost every industry and economic sector. Under certain warming scenarios, our best available estimates suggest that climate change will impose tens of trillions of dollars in economic costs over the next 80 years.

In this unprecedented environment, companies and their investors will need to mitigate their potential losses by preparing for the physical and transition risks associated with climate change. Physical risks include, for example, the costs of repairing damaged facilities after extreme weather events, as well as the increased insurance premiums for the facility following repair. Transition risks are associated with the actions society takes in response to those physical risks—actions like taxing carbon emissions, developing green technology, or increasing demand for sustainable goods and services.

While some of these physical and transition risks are increasingly foreseeable, many publicly traded companies still do not disclose sufficient information about the threats that climate change poses to their operations. Insufficient disclosure persists even though (1) the SEC’s Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X require corporations to disclose material financial information to their investors; (2) a 2010 SEC guidance document clarified that climate damages “can have a material effect on a registrant’s business and operations”; and (3) major investors—including behemoths like BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors—have confirmed that climate risks are material to their investment portfolios.

READ MORE »

Remarks by Chair Gensler Before the SIFMA Annual Meeting

Gary Gensler is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent remarks before the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association annual meeting. The views expressed in the post are those of Chair Gensler, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Staff.

Thank you. It’s good to be here at the annual meeting of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association — what we all know as SIFMA. John [Rogers], I look forward to your questions.

As is customary, I will note that I am not speaking on behalf of the Commission or SEC staff.

The SEC has a three-part mission: protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and maintaining that which is in the middle: fair, orderly, and efficient markets.

We are blessed with the largest, most sophisticated, and most innovative capital markets in the world. The U.S. capital markets represent 38 percent of the globe’s capital markets. [1] This exceeds even our impact on the world’s gross domestic product, where we hold a 24 percent share. [2]

Further, U.S. market participants rely on capital markets more than market participants in any other country.

For example, debt capital markets account for 80 percent of financing for non-financial corporations in the U.S. In the rest of the world, by contrast, nearly 80 percent of lending to such firms comes from banks. [3]

We can’t take our leadership in capital markets for granted, though. New financial technologies continue to change the face of finance for investors and issuers. More retail investors than ever are accessing our markets. Other countries are developing deep, competitive capital markets as well.

READ MORE »

Endogenous Choice of Stakes Under Common Ownership

Scott Hemphill is Moses H. Grossman Professor of Law and Marcel Kahan is George T. Lowy Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. This post is based on their recent paper. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Index Funds and the Future of Corporate Governance: Theory, Evidence, and Policy by Lucian Bebchuk and Scott Hirst (discussed on the forum here); New Evidence, Proofs, and Legal Theories on Horizontal Shareholding by Einer Elhauge (discussed on the Forum here); and Horizontal Shareholding by Einer Elhauge (discussed on the Forum here).

A common concentrated owner (CCO) holds stakes in competing firms. Antitrust theorists have long posited that the interests of a CCO differ from those of an owner of a single firm. Economists have developed models in which, depending on its ownership structure, a firm in a noncompetitive industry maximizes a weighted average of its own and its competitors’ profits. Specifically, greater CCO ownership induces a firm to place a greater weight on competitor profits. At the same time, greater ownership by concentrated owners who do not hold stakes in competing firms—noncommon concentrated owners, or NCOs—reduces that weight. Recent empirical work has found that an increased level of CCO ownership is associated with anticompetitive effects. Other papers find no effect. This literature has generated a heated debate about whether common ownership in noncompetitive industries is compatible with the antitrust laws and whether it should be restricted.

Thus far, the literature has focused on how a particular ownership structure affects firm behavior and outcomes. The ownership structure is taken as given. However, if ownership structure affects firm value, then we would expect owners to alter their stakes in light of this anticipated effect.

READ MORE »

SEC Reopens Comment Period for Dodd-Frank Clawback Rule

Ning Chiu, Joseph A. Hall and Kyoko Takahashi Lin are partners at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post is based on their Davis Polk memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Rationalizing the Dodd-Frank Clawback by Jesse Fried (discussed on the Forum here).

On October 14, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it is reopening the comment period for its proposed clawback rule, which has languished ever since Congress directed the SEC to adopt it in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act directed the SEC to require stock exchanges to obligate each listed company to implement a compensation recovery policy, or “clawback” policy, that provides for the company to recoup incentive-based compensation paid to executive officers.

The SEC’s original rule, [1] proposed in 2015, included the following key elements:

READ MORE »

Lucian Bebchuk and the Study of Corporate Governance

Kobi Kastiel is Associate Professor of Law at Tel Aviv University. This post is based on his recent paper, which was solicited for and will appear in an upcoming issue on the most cited legal scholars that the University of Chicago Law Review will publish later this fall.

I recently placed on SSRN a new paper, titled Lucian Bebchuk and the Study of Corporate Governance. The paper was solicited for, and will appear in, an upcoming issue on the most-cited legal scholars that the University of Chicago Law Review will publish later this year.

The Essay discusses Lucian Bebchuk’s fundamental contributions to the field of corporate governance, as well as his major impact on scholarship, practice, and policy. Bebchuk is the author of more than one hundred articles, and is ranked by SSRN as the most-cited law professor in the corporate field (as well as one of the most-cited law professors in all fields). However, this ranking only tells part of the story; the Essay seeks to provide a fuller picture.

The first part of the Essay focuses on Bebchuk’s research contributions. I begin by surveying the broad range of corporate governance areas to which Bebchuk has made major contributions. By now Bebchuk’s contributions cover nearly every important area in this field, including: (i) management accountability and shareholder rights; (ii) the costs of management insulation; (iii) executive compensation; (iv) short-termism; (v) investor oversight, stewardship, and activism; (vi) controlling shareholders; (vii) dual-class structures and corporate pyramids; (viii) corporate acquisitions; (ix) corporate insolvencies; (x) jurisdictional competition; (xi) contractual freedom and private ordering; (xii) corporate political spending; and (xiii) stakeholder capitalism.

The first part of the Essay also identifies the aspects of Bebchuk’s research that have made it so consequential. In particular, I discuss Bebchuk’s methodological tools and modes of analysis and some of the overarching themes and approaches that are shared by his work in disparate areas.

The second part of the Essay focuses on Bebchuk’s impact. I first explain how Bebchuk’s work has shaped subsequent research; in particular, I discuss the many significant works by prominent scholars (such as Stephen Bainbridge, Frank Easterbrook and Dan Fischel, Jonathan Macey, Colin Mayer, and Lynn Stout) and prominent practitioners (such as Martin Lipton, Barbara Novick and Leo Strine) that have been written to engage with Bebchuk’s research in various areas. I also discuss how Bebchuk’s work has influenced research in economics and finance, as well as judicial decisions and practitioner discourse.

I then discuss how Bebchuk has had an unparalleled impact through his mentoring of many significant scholars. A key model that Bebchuk has widely used is to provide many of his mentees the opportunity to coauthor articles with him in the early stage of their academic careers. In addition to myself, fourteen other professors who have benefited from this unique experience include Oren Bar-Gill, Michal Barzuza, Howard Chang, Allen Ferrell, Jesse Fried, Andrew Guzman, Assaf Hamdani, Scott Hirst, Robert Jackson, Christine Jolls, Marcel Kahan, Holger Spamann, Charles Wang, and David Walker.

Finally, the Essay also discusses how Bebchuk’s scholarship and ideas have contributed to the development and adoption of practices and policies in the corporate governance area. For example, Bebchuk’s scholarly work on shareholder rights and the costs of management insulation has contributed to the widespread opposition among institutional investors to—and the resulting removal by many companies of—staggered boards, antitakeover provisions, and other entrenching arrangements. In addition, his influential research on executive compensation has contributed to the expansion of disclosure requirements for executive compensation, as well as to the increasing support for tightening the link between executive pay and long-term results.

Similarly, his research on the perils of dual-class share structures contributed to the initiatives of the Council of Institutional Investors and index providers to limit the use of such structures. And, Bebchuk’s research on hedge fund activism has contributed to the growing recognition of the benefits of such activism by institutional investors and policymakers.

The Essay is available for download here.

The State of U.S. Sustainability Reporting

Matt Filosa is Senior Managing Director, Faten Alqaseer is Managing Director & Co-Head of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, and Morgan McGovern is Vice President at Teneo. This post is based on a Teneo memorandum by Mr. Filosa, Ms. Alqaseer, Ms. McGovern, Martha Carter, and Jeff Sindone. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance (discussed on the Forum here) and Will Corporations Deliver Value to All Stakeholders?, both by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita; For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); and Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy—A Reply to Professor Rock by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here).

Executive Summary

The significant events of 2020 have caused companies, institutional investors and regulators to re-energize their efforts towards sustainability initiatives. Institutional investors have dramatically enhanced their focus on issues relating to climate, diversity, human capital management and board governance (collectively, “ESG”).

Under the Biden Administration, U.S. regulators are on the verge of mandating greater transparency from all companies on their sustainability initiatives. While many companies have a long history of focusing on sustainability issues, communicating those initiatives to stakeholders is a relatively new endeavor. And stakeholders are evolving their demands for company sustainability disclosure faster than ever before, especially on critical issues like climate change and diversity. There has never been a more important time to ensure that company sustainability disclosure is robust, clear and credible—while also keeping pace with the rapidly evolving demands of stakeholders.

Yet, unlike proxy statements and other company documents, there is no clear disclosure framework for company sustainability reports. And despite ongoing initiatives from the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission and the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation, a uniform global sustainability reporting framework seems unlikely to emerge in the near-term. So how are companies evolving their sustainability reporting to meet the increased demands from stakeholders? What should the title be? And how many pages should it include? In short, what does a “good” sustainability report look like?

READ MORE »

Page 14 of 90
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 90