WEBVTT - States Sue SEC Over Watered Down Broker-Dealer Rule

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.599
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Seven states and

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:25.920
<v Speaker 1>d C accused the Securities and Exchange Commission of watering

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:29.360
<v Speaker 1>down a final regulation intended to protect the customers of

0:00:29.400 --> 0:00:32.879
<v Speaker 1>broker dealers from conflicts of interest, and they're suing over it.

0:00:33.320 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is John Coffee, professor at Columbia University Law School.

0:00:37.720 --> 0:00:40.919
<v Speaker 1>So Jack, what does the new rule do and what

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:44.920
<v Speaker 1>do these states say it should do? Well? Essentially, the

0:00:45.040 --> 0:00:49.040
<v Speaker 1>new rule doesn't do that much. The hope was, or

0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:51.479
<v Speaker 1>at least the hope of these eleven states and many others,

0:00:51.960 --> 0:00:54.440
<v Speaker 1>was it the rule would say that brokers have to

0:00:54.480 --> 0:00:58.400
<v Speaker 1>put their client's interests first. They have a fiduciary duty

0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:00.840
<v Speaker 1>to their clients and a fiducia areas to treat the

0:01:00.880 --> 0:01:04.759
<v Speaker 1>client's interests as paramount. The new rule and said instead

0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:10.080
<v Speaker 1>says the brokers cannot subordinate the client's interests to their own.

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:13.240
<v Speaker 1>That's a lot weaker than saying put the client's interests

0:01:13.280 --> 0:01:16.880
<v Speaker 1>first and says you cannot subordinate the client's interest to

0:01:16.920 --> 0:01:20.120
<v Speaker 1>your interests in many settings. And these eleven states that

0:01:20.120 --> 0:01:23.720
<v Speaker 1>are so think that's too little. I am sympathetic to

0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:26.600
<v Speaker 1>what they're saying, but I don't think this litigation can

0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 1>win because courts just do not do the line drawing

0:01:30.640 --> 0:01:33.600
<v Speaker 1>necessary to write a new rule. They're not going to

0:01:33.760 --> 0:01:37.160
<v Speaker 1>dictate to the administrative agency, with all the expertise the

0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:41.440
<v Speaker 1>sec where that line should be drawn. There is, however,

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:44.200
<v Speaker 1>an even bigger issue lying here which is going to

0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 1>come up soon. Also. One impact of this new weak

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 1>federal rule is it may cause courts to be required

0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:56.640
<v Speaker 1>to supersede, reverse, and cancel the rules in all the states.

0:01:57.400 --> 0:02:01.880
<v Speaker 1>Many states already say, maybe half the state's already say

0:02:01.920 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>that the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the client.

0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:09.640
<v Speaker 1>This new week federal rule may pre empt all the

0:02:09.680 --> 0:02:12.880
<v Speaker 1>state rules. By preempt, I mean if there's a conflict

0:02:12.880 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 1>between federal law and state law, federal law supersedes and wins,

0:02:17.600 --> 0:02:20.400
<v Speaker 1>and that may mean that states like California that have

0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:23.760
<v Speaker 1>a strong fiduciary duty standard may find that that has

0:02:23.800 --> 0:02:26.640
<v Speaker 1>to be reversed. New York has no such rule. They

0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:28.960
<v Speaker 1>don't say that the broker is a fiduciary to you.

0:02:29.480 --> 0:02:31.679
<v Speaker 1>But that's the other issue that's going to be underlying

0:02:31.720 --> 0:02:34.640
<v Speaker 1>this leviation as well, whether state law is now going

0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:37.639
<v Speaker 1>to be canceled by this new federal rule. Let's talk

0:02:37.680 --> 0:02:42.600
<v Speaker 1>first about the possible success of this lawsuit. Business groups

0:02:42.639 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 1>and lobbyist sued over a similar fiduciary standard proposed by

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:49.760
<v Speaker 1>the Labor Department, and last year in appeals court overturned

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:54.400
<v Speaker 1>that regulation. Is that the federal yes, so explain why

0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:58.120
<v Speaker 1>they did that. Well, they thought there were procedural errors

0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:01.480
<v Speaker 1>in the way that the Commission had gone about it. Uh.

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:03.800
<v Speaker 1>But this this is a different litigation. They want a

0:03:03.919 --> 0:03:07.800
<v Speaker 1>strong rule mandated, and that's very unusual for a federal

0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:10.520
<v Speaker 1>court to tell the agency, this is the rule you

0:03:10.600 --> 0:03:14.240
<v Speaker 1>must adopt. It's easy to reverse the rule, much harder

0:03:14.280 --> 0:03:17.919
<v Speaker 1>to write a rule and impose it on the federal agency. Now,

0:03:18.520 --> 0:03:22.160
<v Speaker 1>looking at at the rule, SEC Chairman Jake Clayton said

0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:24.720
<v Speaker 1>in a speech on Monday that it brings disclosures in

0:03:24.800 --> 0:03:28.440
<v Speaker 1>line with what the reasonable investor would expect. New York

0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:32.119
<v Speaker 1>ag Letitia James says that it doesn't address the confusion

0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:36.960
<v Speaker 1>of consumers. Does it do anything to help consumers who

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:42.720
<v Speaker 1>are confused about the conflicts that broker dealers does some good?

0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:45.880
<v Speaker 1>I won't say that it's meaningless. It does improve the

0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:49.680
<v Speaker 1>duty that the broker owes the clients somewhat, but not

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:53.119
<v Speaker 1>nearly as much as state law and many jurisdictions already does.

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 1>It says that you can't subordinate the client's interests to

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:00.640
<v Speaker 1>your own interest as broker, but doesn't mean you have

0:04:00.720 --> 0:04:04.080
<v Speaker 1>to put the client's interests first. For example, you could

0:04:04.120 --> 0:04:06.839
<v Speaker 1>have a proprietary product and you don't have to tell

0:04:06.880 --> 0:04:09.720
<v Speaker 1>the client that that same product is available from your

0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:13.840
<v Speaker 1>competitors at a much lower cost. Uh, that's not you

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:16.960
<v Speaker 1>didn't subordinate his interest. You just didn't put his interest

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:19.520
<v Speaker 1>first and tell them that your rivals had a better product.

0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:23.839
<v Speaker 1>So then will there also be more litigation about whether

0:04:24.279 --> 0:04:29.120
<v Speaker 1>the state rules are superseded by the federal rules. Well,

0:04:29.160 --> 0:04:32.040
<v Speaker 1>I think sooner or later, the state rules are going

0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:34.400
<v Speaker 1>to be applied in some case and the broker and

0:04:34.440 --> 0:04:37.240
<v Speaker 1>the industry is going to say that state rule is invalid.

0:04:37.680 --> 0:04:40.400
<v Speaker 1>They're going to treat the state rule as being invalidated.

0:04:40.480 --> 0:04:43.360
<v Speaker 1>But no court has yet ruled, and it's a question

0:04:43.400 --> 0:04:46.039
<v Speaker 1>about when that issue is going to arise. But all

0:04:46.080 --> 0:04:49.080
<v Speaker 1>the state rules are in jeopardy. That's all I can say.

0:04:49.160 --> 0:04:51.840
<v Speaker 1>It will be the industry that will say the state

0:04:51.920 --> 0:04:54.280
<v Speaker 1>rule is invalid and they're not going to suit at

0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:56.560
<v Speaker 1>the outset. They're going to wait till the case arises

0:04:56.839 --> 0:04:59.400
<v Speaker 1>in which the state tries to say that their rule

0:04:59.480 --> 0:05:02.719
<v Speaker 1>has to be followed. In this case under Dodd Frank,

0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:05.919
<v Speaker 1>the intent was to bring the standard of conduct for

0:05:05.960 --> 0:05:09.960
<v Speaker 1>stockbrokers on conflicts of interest in line with the stricter

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:13.880
<v Speaker 1>standard for financial advisors. I believe why did the SEC

0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:17.200
<v Speaker 1>decide not to do that? They didn't do that. The

0:05:17.279 --> 0:05:22.120
<v Speaker 1>question was can we reconcile and even up the obligation

0:05:22.240 --> 0:05:25.400
<v Speaker 1>z owed by an investment advisor who is a fiduciary

0:05:25.520 --> 0:05:29.159
<v Speaker 1>with the obligations that are broker host who isn't the fiduciary,

0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 1>but under the standards of a private body called SINA,

0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:36.920
<v Speaker 1>the financial industry regulatory authority has to observe certain suitability

0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:39.520
<v Speaker 1>rules and make sure he doesn't recommend products that are

0:05:39.560 --> 0:05:42.479
<v Speaker 1>clearly unsuitable to the investor. So they were supposed to

0:05:42.520 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>even the amount reach some kind of balance between the two.

0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:48.919
<v Speaker 1>In fact, what they did was raised the standard for

0:05:48.960 --> 0:05:51.760
<v Speaker 1>the broker a little bit and then lower the standard

0:05:51.800 --> 0:05:55.360
<v Speaker 1>for the investment advisor a considerable amount. So we've leveled off,

0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 1>not at the intermediate point, but at a point that

0:05:57.760 --> 0:06:01.360
<v Speaker 1>reduces the duties of investment advisors and moves the duties

0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:05.640
<v Speaker 1>of brokers up a little. So investors lost here. I

0:06:05.680 --> 0:06:08.320
<v Speaker 1>think this was a giant lobbying battle at the SEC,

0:06:08.800 --> 0:06:12.479
<v Speaker 1>and the industry won out over the over the clients investors.

0:06:12.920 --> 0:06:15.799
<v Speaker 1>So what what is to be done at this point?

0:06:15.839 --> 0:06:19.120
<v Speaker 1>If the lawsuit won't work well, I doubt that the

0:06:19.200 --> 0:06:22.360
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit will win. I suspect this could be a political

0:06:22.400 --> 0:06:25.760
<v Speaker 1>issue if we ever have a presidential election in which

0:06:25.800 --> 0:06:29.080
<v Speaker 1>a Democrat gets elected. I suspect that a new SEC

0:06:29.240 --> 0:06:32.560
<v Speaker 1>appointed by a new president will reconsider this issue, but

0:06:32.680 --> 0:06:35.600
<v Speaker 1>that would take several years. In the meantime, I don't

0:06:35.600 --> 0:06:38.640
<v Speaker 1>think after this long a lobbying battle that the SEC

0:06:38.960 --> 0:06:42.360
<v Speaker 1>is going to change as it is presently constituted. Can

0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:47.120
<v Speaker 1>you explain to the average person why Dodd Frank was

0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:50.120
<v Speaker 1>passed nearly a decade ago, why it took so long

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:53.480
<v Speaker 1>to even get this watered down version. It's certainly a

0:06:53.560 --> 0:06:57.279
<v Speaker 1>very good question. Of course, these are intense lobbying battles.

0:06:57.600 --> 0:06:59.880
<v Speaker 1>Brokers do not want to be subject to a do

0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:02.640
<v Speaker 1>they want to sell their own products. They don't want

0:07:02.640 --> 0:07:05.240
<v Speaker 1>it to say that their competitor's product has a better

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:07.680
<v Speaker 1>price to it. They don't want to have a constant

0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:12.040
<v Speaker 1>duty to warn the investor about risky faces. Uh. They

0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:14.760
<v Speaker 1>are scared about the liabilities that would be involved here.

0:07:14.760 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 1>I understand their fear of liability. But I thought that

0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:21.200
<v Speaker 1>the ten of Congress was to get some fair intermediate

0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:26.160
<v Speaker 1>compromise between the duty that investment advisors owed and the duty,

0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:29.360
<v Speaker 1>the lesser duty that brokers had to observe. And I'm

0:07:29.360 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 1>afraid the compromise has not come out in the middle,

0:07:32.040 --> 0:07:35.840
<v Speaker 1>but substantially below the midpoint of that difference. Less than

0:07:35.880 --> 0:07:39.600
<v Speaker 1>a minute here. But can Congress do anything? Okards can

0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:41.920
<v Speaker 1>do anything he wants to do. But if you've observed

0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:46.280
<v Speaker 1>Congress recently, it's fairly paralyzed. Uh. Things might go through

0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:48.640
<v Speaker 1>the House, but they won't go through the center. And

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:51.280
<v Speaker 1>we're entering into an election year, and in an election year,

0:07:51.360 --> 0:07:53.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't expect that there will be much of a

0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 1>compromise effort to pass legislation. Thank you so much. Jack.

0:07:57.400 --> 0:08:00.920
<v Speaker 1>As always, that's John Coffee. He's a professor at Columbia

0:08:01.040 --> 0:08:06.680
<v Speaker 1>University Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:08:07.040 --> 0:08:11.080
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:08:11.160 --> 0:08:15.080
<v Speaker 1>and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:16.840
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg