Does Regulatory Jurisdiction Affect the Quality of Investment-Adviser Regulation?

S-Tier
Journal: American Economic Review
Year: 2019
Volume: 109
Issue: 10
Pages: 3681-3712

Authors (3)

Ben Charoenwong (INSEAD) Alan Kwan (not in RePEc) Tarik Umar (not in RePEc)

Score contribution per author:

2.691 = (α=2.02 / 3 authors) × 4.0x S-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

The Dodd-Frank Act shifted regulatory jurisdiction over "midsize" investment advisers from the SEC to state-securities regulators. Client complaints against midsize advisers increased relative to those continuing under SEC oversight by 30 to 40 percent of the unconditional probability. Complaints increasingly cited fiduciary violations and rose more where state regulators had fewer resources. Advisers responding more to weaker oversight had past complaints, were located farther from regulators, faced less competition, had more conflicts of interest, and served primarily less-sophisticated clients. Our results inform optimal regulatory design in markets with informational asymmetries and search frictions.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:aea:aecrev:v:109:y:2019:i:10:p:3681-3712
Journal Field
General
Author Count
3
Added to Database
2026-01-25