CFA Institute Member Poll:
U.S. Regulatory Reforms
July 2009
Executive Summary
55 percent of members think “regulatory reform” for the financial services industry should mean redesigned regulation to be more efficient and 24 percent think it should be better enforcement of
existing regulation.
73 percent of members disagree (with 37 percent strongly disagreeing) that we should act quickly to
reform financial markets, instead favoring a slower approach to address changes in a more
comprehensive manner.
42 percent of members agree (and 58 percent disagree) that the Federal Reserve should serve in the
primary prudential regulatory role. 48 percent feel a council of regulators, including the Federal
Reserve, should be established to monitor systemic risk and 26 percent feel the Federal Reserve should
be given sole power.
69 percent of respondents agree that hedge funds should be required to register and provide public
information about investments and 60 percent agree that private equity funds be required to do so.
The majority agree that all financial advisers should be held to a single fiduciary standard of care (80
percent agree in total, with 38 percent strongly agreeing). 59 percent believe that the SEC should
continue to oversee registered investment advisers, while 24 percent believe a self-regulatory
organization such as Finra or a newly created SRO should oversee RIAs.
Nearly 70 percent of members responding think existing regulators (e.g., SEC, CFTC, etc.) should be
combined and reorganized into a single functional agency with updated divisions covering all current
areas and areas where gaps exist. Similarly, the same proportion of members (69 percent) think
banking regulators (Office of the Comptroller of Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, the FDIC, Federal
Reserve, state regulators, etc.) should be combined and reorganized into a single functional bank
regulator with updated divisions covering all current areas and areas where gaps exist.
54 percent think the SEC should have primary responsibility for the oversight of investor protection, 21
percent think a new, separate consumer protection agency should have primary responsibility, and 13
percent think the Federal Trade Commission should have primary responsibility.
The purpose of this poll was to obtain CFA Institute member feedback about various elements of
regulatory reform currently being proposed by the U.S. government to be incorporated into a report
from the Investors’ Working Group, an independent panel formed to recommend ways to improve the
regulation of the U.S. financial markets from the investor's point of view, which is scheduled to be
released this July.
The survey was e-mailed to a random sample of 24,967 CFA Institute members in the United States with
a valid e-mail address on 30 June 2009, and the survey closed on 7 July. The survey questionnaire
consisted of ten questions. 1,837 members responded to the survey, for an overall response rate of 7.4
percent. The confidence interval is ±2.3 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Margin of error
varies by question as the number responding to each question varies. No opinion responses have been
excluded from the findings presented below.
Results
In your opinion, what should “regulatory reform” for the financial services
Count Column %
industry mean?
More regulation in the financial services industry
254
14%
Less regulation in the financial services industry
69
4%
Re-designed regulation to be more efficient
1,002
55%
Better enforcement of existing regulation
435
24%
Other
75
4%
Sample Size
1,835
“Other” responses include:
# 2 and # 4
#1, #3 and #4 in combination (they are not mutually exclusive)
a combination of more and better regulation. I believe that those institutions that elect to go for size(i.e.
too big to fail), should have stricter capital requirements. In the event of potential failure, those
institutions should be saved. Institutions
A combination of re-designed and better enforcement
all above except less
all of the above depending upon the specific issue
Bank regulators should use existing authority to require much higher equity capital levels at banks that
take FDIC-insured deposits, particularly when such banks take on exposure to highly-levered
counterparties such as AIG, BS, LB, etc. Each bank should
better & more efficient
better and more stringent enforcement
Better enforcement of existing AND more regulation--especially regarding derivatives
Better enforcement of existing regulation
better enforcement, better transparency and significant regulation of CDS
Better qualified regulators
Both better enforcement and new regulations for poorly covered areas
both better re-designed regulation and better enforcement, plus investment finance education standards
for K-12 schools
Both Re-designed for efficiency and Better Enforcement
Capital standards for lending or securitizing institutions.
Choice 1, 3 and 4
Cleaning up corruption in the Democratic Party
combination of 1,3, 4
Combination of more efficient regulation and better enforcement of existing regulation
combination of re-design (e.g.: re-enact Glass-Steagall) & better enforcement of existing regulations
complete transparency in all derivate products
Consistent regulation that treats all financial advisors as fiduciaries with bright line definitions. Tighter
scrutiny on the largest institutions.
criminal fraud prosecutions
efficient and enforced regulation
expand regulation on hedge funds, derivatives, short selling, structured products and spe's
free markets, with no too big to fail.
Get political influences out of the financial services industry. They caused the crisis.
Give John Bogle, Warren Buffet, and Paul Volker the power to design the regulatory reforms and the
means of enforcing them, and possibly, just possibly, we might make it another fifty plus years before
greed overwhelms good sense, and morality is set aside
Higher capital ratios (less leverage); fix compensation structure; regulate derivatives; break up too big to
fail institutions
hold politicians accountable for their role in what happened.
I think more enforcement is necessary in areas where transparency is limited (ie. hedge funds and other
opaque investment vehicles)
I think you need a combination of option three and four
I would endorse both the re-design of regulation for greater efficiency and better enforcement of existing
regulation...the SEC is a perfect example of a Commission not stepping forward to limit extreme activities.
Improve Transparency
In short, less but better regulation. There has been a lot of talk about what caused the crisis. There has
been a lot of talk about what we should do about the crisis. But there hasn’t been much talk about what
could have prevented the crisis. Did this cri
less government intervention
More and more efficient regulation and better enforcement
more effective regulatory process and control mechanisms that are resistant to political influence/bias and
clearly identify magnitude of risk in the system
More focused on too big to fail and other. Two classes of regulated institutions
More meaningful regulation, that is efficient in its implementation and enforceable.
More political interference in the markets that will only hasten the collapse of the US financial system.
More regulation of derivatives!!!
More regulation on overseeing government entities that are partly responsible for enacting legislation and
agencies lack of intelligence of enforcing CURRENT laws.
More regulation. It must reflect and recognize the tremendous risk to the system large financial firms
have. It must be more consistent and transparent, i.e. regulate credit default swaps as an insurance
contract. It must include the resources
more transparency
More transparency and efficiency - less complex accounting (less chances of creating loopholes)
more transparency and much stronger anti-fraud regulation needed
More, re designed, and better enforcement. a triple play
need both more and re-designed
New regulation where necessary; better enforcement of existing regulation
No Regulation
Re-design to be both more effective and efficient.
Re-Designed & Better Enforcement
Re-designed + better enforcement
Re-designed and better enforcement.
Re-designed and enforced. Don’t put rules on book you have no intention of enforcing, a la Madoff. The
SEC should be disbanded it is a bad brand name.
Re-designed regulation to be more efficient AND MORE EFFECTIVE
re-designed, updated regulation and better enforced w/funding provided for adequate enforcement
regulate hedge funds
Regulating the LENDING institutions and repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and abolishing the
Fractional Reserve banking practice
Remove political influence
Remove politics
Remove rating agency monopoly
Rephrase regulation guidelines to become a principle, with implementation as needed. Key point-nothing
is exempt even if it is a new product in the future.
Selected improvements (but not overall more) e.g., financial planners and broker/dealers held to the same
fiduciary standard
Statements of Conduct
Stop naked short selling
Stronger capital rules but less regulation
The options given are too narrow and do not allow for alternative views on the meaning “regulatory
reform” to be represented.
The SEC is too close to the industry
There are areas that need more regulation. There is a need for better enforcement. There is a need for
redesign to be more efficient (e.g. state regulation of insurance)
William Pool's suggestion of a CDS exchange sounds resonable: "The Way Forward," Cato Journal,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n1/cj29n1-15.pdf
There is a debate within Congress about whether to act quickly to reform
Count Column %
financial markets—taking advantage of the crisis for needed reform—or to take a
slower approach to address changes in a more comprehensive manner. To what
extent do you agree or disagree that we need to act quickly vs. a go-slow
approach to regulatory reform?
Strongly agree
135
8%
Agree
338
19%
Disagree
654
37%
Strongly disagree
648
37%
Sample Size
1,775
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the Federal Reserve should serve in Count Column %
the primary prudential regulatory role (e.g., the sole lead regulator over all
financial services similar to the UK’s Financial Services Authority model)?
Strongly agree
175
11%
Agree
520
32%
Disagree
522
32%
Strongly disagree
421
26%
Sample Size
1,638
Who should be responsible for monitoring systemic risk throughout the United
Count Column %
States financial system?
A new, independent body to track and model systemic risk.
251
15%
The Federal Reserve should be given sole power to monitor systemic risk.
429
26%
A council of regulators, including the Federal Reserve, should be established to
781
48%
monitor systemic risk.
Other
177
11%
Sample Size
1,638
“Other” responses include:
"Systemic risk" is a red herring. Enforce the laws, and ALLOW FIRM FAILURES!
A council of regulators and industry professionals should be established.
A council of regulators with full transparency to the public.
A new FSA-like agency
A new independent body with representation from the Fed.
A privately created committee
A professional society of certified individuals bound by a set of standards of practice (analogous to CFA's
and actuaries, etc.)... supplemented by a council of regulators
all derivative instruments should be traded on listed exchanges to ensure full and adequate disclosure as
to their valuations(use a black scholes based model for valuations
Allow the free market's creative destruction process to function.
An existing regulatory body, with expanded powers.
An independent body charged with assessing risk and EMPOWERED to take the steps necessary to
mitigate risk. This body will need funding.
Any of above could work
As above, I think a group primarily run through the FDIC is a better option, of which the FED could be a
part of
Attempting to monitor systemic risk is pointless and naive.
Bank regulators
Boards of Directors
break up the too-big-to-fail = eliminate systemic risk
Comptroller of the Currency
Controller of the Currency
Council, ex Fed
Dept. of the Treasury
Don't care, as long as they understand the nature of risk!
Existing agencies need to talk/coordinate with each other to avoid confusion/overlap
FDIC
FDIC
FDIC
Fed should be the primary regulator, but require public companies to present better and greater disclosure
such that shareholders (analysts) can make judgments.
Federal Reserve is the only systemic risk......who is going to monitor the monitors...?
financial firms
FINRA
Firms that engage in the risk should be responsible for monitoring themselves
First define systematic risk
free capital markets. Allow failing companies to FAIL
Free markets should be allowed to adjust
Free markets should prevail. Let the market decide the presence and level of systemic risk.
Free Markets!!!!!!!!!!
free markets/no bail-outs/no moral hazard
GAO
get govt out period
global oversight needed
Have you read Taleb? There is no way to "monitor" systemic risk and efforts to regulate it away are
fruitless.
I don't think modeling systemic risk is even possible. I think the best solution is to manage risk at the
individual firm level and to limit the size of all financial firms so that none are too big to fail.
I think the loose monetary policy of the Federal Reserve combined with Fractional Reserve Banking /
Capital Requirements create the systemic risk to the system. Eliminate those aspects of our financial
system and you will reduce the systemic risks to the
I'm not convinced we need a "body" to regulate system-wide risk.
individual participants
Individuals that take the risk. It is called Personal Responsibility. We need a little bit more of people taking
upon themselves the ability to have personal responsibility in their lives. Government only hurts people,
look at the current environment..
Institutions should be required to hold some sort of capital insurance whereby the insurers will have a
vested interest in protecting against systemic risk.
Investors
Investors can build or buy such systemic risk monitoring services
Investors: buyer beware
involve the private sector
is more bureaucracy the answer? you can create 10 new committees and it won't matter if they're asleep
at the wheel. mo' politicians, mo' problems
it can't be done
It depends on how systemic risk is defined and measured. Risk taking has been an integral positive part of
our economy and it should not be discouraged.
It should be the SEC as in "Securities and Exchange Commission"!
It takes a thief. Maybe Madoff?
It was obvious that Al Greenspan did not have a clue. He had the authority and he should have not a
better job of monitoring the bank and their loan practices. In my opinion the Federal reserve had the
authority, but chose to sit on the side line.
Just mandate low leverage & there will be no systematic risk
Large institutions should be broken up to reduce likelihood of system risk.
Left to free market
Let the cards fall
Let the market rule.
Let the markets figure it out
let the markets work
make sure financial institutions have enough skin in the game to monitor themselves properly
Management/BOD
market participants, fully at risk!
Markets, Stop interventions that lead to systemic risk. By that I mean do not have a volatile money supply
and eliminate agencies such as Fannie Mae that are designed to interfere in the capital markets
Me
Merge the SEC and the CFTC; merge banking regulators; create size limits on entities through reserve
requirements, etc., let entities compete. Merge congressional committees with oversight over SEC, CFTC,
banking regulators also. Presidents Working Group
More specifics needed.
More transparency is needed
need an overhaul. create something that makes sense
New agency for comprehensive regulation; dismantle most of the old ones
No Federal monitoring needed.
No institution should pose systemic risk; if it does it needs to be dismantled.
No more government control is needed.
No need for a systemic risk monitor
No one
No one
no one
No one
no one
No one
no one
no one
No one
No one
No one
No one
No one - it can't be done
No one - not the government's job to control the economy
no one -- the market itself should decide
no one -- who has shown the knowledge to do this in the past???
No one should -- let markets decide
no one, monitoring will be politicized
No one.
No one. Can't we read a newspaper?
No one...if other regulation are properly enforced, systemic risk should not become a problem.
No one; should be monitored independently
No organization should monitor systemic risk.
no systemic regulator
nobody
Nobody
Nobody
nobody
Nobody
Nobody
NOBODY
nobody - i.e. the market itself
Nobody is that smart. Let the market work.
Nobody!
nobody, let the market decide on risk/reward.
none
None
none
none
None - I think this is terrible idea.
None Needed
None, the "system" is too big and adapts too quickly
No one-free market forever
Not needed
Not required.
One agency - the Fed or other agency
Please see my detailed response to Question #3.
President and Cabinet are responsible
private industry
private sector
private sector
Qualified experienced professionals
Same as question one.
SEC
SEC
sec
SEC
SEC
SEC
SEC
SEC
SEC with better enforcement
SEC, Fed Etc to do their job
Securities Exchange Commission
see previous answer
should be with SEC
Should be within current framework where regulator is actively talking with short sellers. Private sector
always spies these before regulators do.
Sole power to no single authority
Systemic risk is a given. Cannot be regulated.
Systemic risk is by definition the sum of specific risks that should already have oversight
Systemic risk is overblown
Systemic risk will always be around with a fiat currency system and that's okay, risk is risk no matter
where it comes from...boom and busts happen...we will boom again...please do not allow emotional
regulation.
the banks themselves
the fed primarily, but with input of the FDIC and US Treasury
the free market
the market
The Market
the market
the market participants
The only risk that should be monitored is the risk being taken by Congress, the White House, the Treasury
and the rest of Washington, which created this whole mess in the first place.
The risk holders
The system needs to be comprised of many small players and not few big players such as now. This will
make it more robust without a 'too big to fail' players.
There is no need for a systematic risk monitor
There ought not be a "systemic risk" regulator. The concept exists only in CAPM make believe.
They'll all miss it next time too!
This is NOT the proper function of government.
This is too much for any one entity. There should be several entities responsible for monitoring systemic
risk, probably divided up by the different sectors of the capital markets. Eg, one for credit, one for rates,
one for FX, one for equities, etc...s
This question pre-supposes that systemic risk can be forecast
Those taking the risk
This is an impossible task
too big to fail banks need to be made smaller; the banking system should not be so vulnerable; freeze and
wind down OTC derivatives
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury
Treasury Department
Treasury Dept.
US Treasury Department
we don't need that
What does monitoring provide without backup authority to correct buses?
Do you agree or disagree that hedge funds should be required to register and
provide public information about investments?
Count Column %
Agree
Disagree
1,172
520
Sample Size
Do you agree or disagree that private equity funds should be required to register
and provide public information about investments?
Agree
Disagree
Count Column %
988
670
Sample Size
69%
31%
1,692
60%
40%
1,658
The Administration proposes that all "financial advisers" (professionals
Count Column %
providing financial advice, including broker/dealers, investment advisers and
other financial planners) be held to a single fiduciary standard of care. To what
extent do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly agree
669
38%
Agree
727
42%
Disagree
227
13%
Strongly disagree
115
7%
Sample Size
1,738
Do you believe that a self-regulatory organization, such as Finra or a newly
Count Column %
created SRO, should oversee registered investment advisers, or should they
continue to operate under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange
Commission? Alternatively, should Congress adopt some other option?
Finra
336
19%
New SRO
279
16%
SEC
1,065
59%
Some other option
120
7%
Sample Size
1,800
“Other” options include:
A combination of two organizations
A new FSA-like agency
abolish FINRA
Again, there should be regulation, but by a government created entity? No. That is why Madoff got away
with what he did. The SEC did not have intelligent people with market experience investigating the fraud.
Create a private institution that compromises
Again, to me, it doesn't really matter who: Finra, SEC or new agency, it only matters if it's clear who's
overseeing what
All under ONE new regulator
Any agency that sets appropriate standards and vigorously enforces compliance.
Any other existing like federal reserve organization
Anything but Finra. New SRO. SEC. Some other option.
bad question
CFA Institute
CFA Institute
CFAI
CFP Board or CFA Institute - Not FINRA!
Combination of SRO and Government Agency
combine all under 1 entity
Combine entities
Combined regulator structure
combined sro
Congress should create a new oversight body and common people and also sophisticated investors should
have someone on the panel.
Consolidate SEC/CFTC
Consolidate w/ BDs, insurance, banking, etc.
Definitely not an SRO or Finra. These groups gravitate toward self serving behavior. Of the options
presented the SEC is the best. However it could fall under the jurisdiction of a new entity charged with
managing systemic risk.
doesn't matter; reg agencies always get inept bottom of barrel
don't know yet but something that will work
don't know. SEC does a shitty job at regulation. Why should some other organization do a better job?
eliminate oversight, but strongly prosecute fraud
Fed
Fed - my trust in the SEC is gone
Finra and SEC are big joke.
Finra and SEC are useless
Finra? SRO?
Following the fiasco that the SEC was involved in with Bernard Madoff, I believe the organization has been
entirely eviscerated. While the CFTC has not met such a fate, I believe the US Financial Regulatory
environment is too complicated. These organizations
FSA-like regulatory -the SEC has failed
get out of the market's way
Governmental regulators as well as "self-regulatory" agencies are all eventually compromised by the
businesses they regulate. We have lost the ability to tell right from wrong; we are taught that every ethic
is merely relative. Since all lawmakers can b
Gov’t organization with practitioners more qualified than current than SEC staff.
hands off
i don't think it's necessarily who has oversight, but how well/effectively they perform their duties. right
now it doesn't seem like there are a lot of resources dedicated to rooting out malfeasance (and maybe the
cost/benefit doesn't justify it).
I'm open to ideas
Independent Non-Affiliated Body of Subject Matter Specialists
Independent regulatory body. SEC has failed and self-regulation is a myth.
Industry self regulation does not work - Completely new organization is needed.
Isn't self-regulatory a contradiction in terms????
It needs to be something with some teeth that holds financial advisors accountable for their advice and
practices. i feel financial advisors are poorly supervised under the current system.
It seems focus is lost and nuances in the marketplace go unnoticed unless someone is closer to the
situation. Self regulation should work BUT abusers have led us to need government regulation.
Leave oversight as is
Me
Modify the current regulatory standards within the SEC
more independence and focus on consumer protection over investment advisor is needed for focus
New and improved SEC
new separate govt agency
newly reorganised SEC that is effective in monitoring
NFA should oversee
No Federal oversight needed.
No need to regulate private transactions. Only regulate the lending institutions. Split the banks in 'risk
taking' and 'safe custodians of checking & saving accounts'
no new regulation is needed
No regulation should be required. On a similar note, failure means no government bailouts
Not clear until details known
Not sure what should be done
One government regulator should regulate all financial institutions including registered investment
advisors.
Please see my detailed response to Question #3.
Reorganized SEC
Representation by all agencies with a transparent control and accountability processes
Revised SEC
RIA are regulated by the SEC. I am not sure if there is a problem with the RIA. Maybe the SEC should do a
better job in the enforcement department.
SEC actually DOING oversight
SEC but SEC should be equipped with people who are well versed in the financial services industry and
know what they are doing
SEC but they should have a standard which includes NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
SEC combined with the Fed
SEC is a worthless bunch of lawyers. Need new body versed in financial industry,
SEC should become more proactive and hire people that are financially literate.
SEC w/ actual enforcement
SEC with Markopolis solution
See question one.
Self-regulatory organizations are not a reliable part of the solution.
single regulator for all
Single, Fed Reserve, oversight
Something that actually WORKS!
State reg if AUM <$50M; Fed (SEC) reg if AUM >$50M; prosecute those who break the law.
States
the Fed
There should be a single financial regulatory entity for all financial entities.
There shouldn't be too many regulators in the financial markets. Just one or few efficient one(s).
They just need to do their jobs
this industry should not be self regulated. in a related matter, see bernie madoff.
under a consolidated financial risk governance agency, similar in construct as the Fed governor structure
Well the SEC, but they actually need to enforce the regs that exist.
What is SRO?
Who is less important than What.
Why should we trust the government to regulate anyone? They're all susceptible to self dealing. You
should regulate yourself. That's it.
Would say SEC but only if it is given resources to do the job
Some regulatory reform plans call for the consolidation of existing regulators.
Count Column %
What should happen with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and other functional regulators
overseeing securities and industry practitioners?
These agencies should be kept separate and provided more resources for oversight
449
27%
and enforcement.
The agencies should be combined and reorganized into a single functional agency
1,166
69%
with update divisions covering all current areas and areas where gaps exist (e.g.,
over-the-counter derivatives market).
Other
74
4%
Sample Size
1,689
“Other” responses include:
Agencies should be abolished
Agencies should remain focused; therefore separate. However, this does not mean they cannot work
together and share information. Some "Holdco" could be established to force more open communication
amongst the different bodies.
Agencies that did their jobs should get more resources; agencies that did not should be revamped
All derivatives should be exchange traded
As is
as is.
Choice above are loaded
Close the SEC
combination of one and two. SEC is already unwieldy; being bigger is not going to be better.
Combine regulators. OTC derivatives can be controlled through higher equity capital requirements for
banks that take deposits with FDIC insurance.
Combine SEC & CFTC
Combined regulator for banks and financial institutions. Separate regulator for markets and exchanges.
consolidate the 10 or so regulatory agencies into 1
consolidated financial risk governance agency, separate from Fed but similar in construct, with a high
degree of independence, with limited authority of all traded financial instruments including government
sponsored issuers (FNMA). Check power on certain
Disband the SEC
disband them all
dis-banded
Do nothing
Eliminate them
Eliminate them and aggressively prosecute fraud such as the DTCC's failure to ensure settlement
Get rid of both agencies
Good luck.
I see no need to expand regulation of OTC derivatives; nor more resources
Imprisoned
Keep separate but put under the Fed to have Fed powers.
Keep separate, increase budget for education, not enforcement.
keep separate, no more funding
Keep the agencies separate, but focus their efforts on enforcement. Add'l resources (i.e. more dollars) will
not fix the problem, but a focused approach can.
Keep them separate but with no net increase in resources.
keep them separate - increase their budgets - and get some educated folk in each (Specifically SEC)
Keep them, but limit their authority to compliance (not policy, or rulemaking)
Kept separate but the gaps between agencies needs to be closed so we don't have another AIG
Less resources
let mkt sort out, not bureaucrats
like #2 but need the resources suggested in #1
mix of approaches
more resources needed - more independence to pursue
Musical chairs. Rules create gaps. No getting around it. These ideas are the swan song of US financial
services.
Need a working group led by CFA Institute/CFA charterholders to work through a solution
Need to do a better job with same resources.
No change
No Federal regulators needed.
none
Nothing should change except the people in charge
Operate as separate entities but collaborate and organize efforts via a supervisory panel comprised of
representatives from each agency
Organization should be reduced in size
Private contracts should be excluded from systemic risk management.
probably doesn't matter if you consolidate or increase the number of agencies. Leviathan is pretty much
out of control.
Rework as part of a comprehensive integrated strategy
scrap regulatory laws
SEC has too many lawyers in control. Give substantial control to Economists, not lawyers (like the Federal
Reserve).
SEC should be abolished
SEC should be abolished and replaced with a new self regulating entity
SEC should close
See question one.
Separate, each more focused on enforcement but without significantly more resources
Separate but not necessarily more resources.
Silly choices in the question. Keep them separate but no more resources!! Efficiency and effectiveness need
to prevail as organizational priorities.
Some increase, but more enforcement of policies. To short something, you must have secured the security,
therefore the people lending will be paid for their services, and fictional shares can't move markets.
The agencies should remain separate but share information openly.
The entities should remain separate but have adequate resources already.
The size and influence of these agencies should be gradually reduced.
There should be separate agencies for the different types of financial service providers.
These agencies are at best ineffective and should be disbanded and not replaced.
These agencies should be disbanded and the best of their people can go find jobs in private industry
working for third party service providers. Of course, the worst of their workers would have to get reassigned, as construction workers.
These agencies failed to do their jobs and hurt Americans and the United States standing in the world as a
world economic power. They should be disbanded. Their senior management should stand trial for their
egregious failures and cronyism (like their loo
These regulators should be kept separate, but reorganize to be more efficient.
They have sufficient resources; they need to be held accountable by Congress and made transparent to
those they are regulating
They need to be fully reorganized as the current structure is completely ineffective.
They should be able to do a better job with the resources they have.
They should be left alone and provided with resources to provide education to their employees
They should operate independently but be grouped together similar to the nation's intelligence agencies
after 9/11. The main impetus behind this structure would be to promote communication and cooperation.
Why give them more money for the next crisis when they couldn't manage this one?
Would prefer combined but also believe the CFTC and SEC should be overseen by the same gov't
committees (i.e., what the hell is the Agriculture still doing monitoring the CFTC)
How should Congress banking regulation involve the Office of the Comptroller of Count Column %
Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, the
These agencies should be kept separate and provided more resources for oversight
393
25%
and enforcement.
The agencies should be combined and reorganized into a single functional bank
1,090
69%
regulator with updated divisions covering all current areas and areas where gaps
exist (e.g., confused oversight of bank holding companies).
Other
106
7%
Sample Size
1,589
“Other” responses include:
Abolish them
A combination of the first two options--roles need to be clearly established and defined but all oversight
vested within one agency is not effective in the long run (political forces ultimately leads to "regulatory
capture"
A board comprised of representative from each of these agencies should be established to ensure
communication between them regarding similar regulatory offenses.
Again good luck. Get them to stop the terrible things that they currently do in the first place. They are all
too political. The task has become hopeless.
Agencies should be abolished
Agencies that did their jobs should get more resources; agencies that did not should be revamped
as is
by keeping their hands off them
C'mon, question far too broad and response choices too narrow.
Combine all except the Fed.
combine but not all into 1
combine except for the fed
Combine federal regulators except for Fed which should remain separate
Combine OCC &OTS. FDIC is a coop insurance co., should be separate. Fed is in charge of monetary policy,
should not have expanded reg role.
combine several but not into one
Combine the federal agencies; limit overlap between state and federal
Combine the OCC and the OTS
Combine them all with the exception of the fed. let the fed worry about inflation. i feel like the fed has way
too much power as is.
Combine w/ Fed as overseer
Combined and streamlined
compliance only - no policy or rulemaking
disband them all
dis-banded
Dislike loaded choices above
Don't make it worse. Do nothing.
Eliminate them
Eliminate them
Eliminate them and subject wrong doing to aggressive prosecution
Eliminate these Federal agencies.
Enforce the laws, as they exist. Then we'll talk about changes.
FDIC should have lead role
Federal Reserve separate but combine the rest.
Federal Reserve should remain separate; others combined. State regulation should be left up to the states.
fire all the employees of these agencies...
get rid of them altogether. Fraudulent banks will lose customers and their assets will get sold to better
enterprises.
hard to say as the regulatory boundaries are unclear now
I believe at the federal level, banking regulation could be consolidated under the Fed and FDIC. Certain
small and specialized banks could still operate under state regulation with some FDIC oversight for deposit
insurance purposes.
I think the Federal Reserve should be stripped of all regulatory functions, and all banking regulation should
be consolidated under one entity.
I would think that the Fed should continue as a separate entity, a should the FDIC. However, the state
regulators, the Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision might be well-placed in a new
combined agency...in that they enforce the s
I'm open for more ideas. Possibly a two-tiered system with one highly regulated and federally insured and
the second tier also regulated but not insured and an explicit guarantee that they aren't covered. No
Goldman's or Bear Stearns that are allowed lo
introduce incentive pay for good enforcement to these regulators so that they've not behaving like unions
punching time sheets
It is Congressional, and the listed answers do not address the question -- the answers are the same as
question 8. Congress should set the framework and get out of the way, and the current regulatory
structure should work if funded and actually enforced.
It may
Keep Federal Reserve separate but combine other regulators into a few.
Keep separate / resources now adequate
keep separate, no more funding
Keep them separate but with no net increase in resources.
kept separate but without more resources; (you are loading the question here)
like #2 but need the resources suggested in #1
lose the thrift charter model altogether and OTS
merge occ and ots only
Merge OCC, OTS and FDIC. Keep Fed separate. Get rid of many state regulators.
Merge OTC and OCC, leave others as are...
merge OTS & OCC into FDIC, keep Fed separate
mixed approach
Need to be reorganized, but consolidation of power will lead to longer-term problems
Need to do a better job with same resources.
Need to respect certain rights of States to regulate banks within States
No bailouts should be made, all deposit insurance functions fully privatized…no increase in regulatory
budgets, entities, or laws.
No change
none
OCC and OTC should be consolidated; the others should stay separate
OCC and OTS should merge
OCC, OTS, and state regulators should be combined
OTC is a piece of crap, consolidate with something. State regulation seems like a fractious disaster, get
ride of them too. The rest just need to be staffed with people capable of enforcing their duties.
Oversight should be transferred to one of these agencies and duplicate functions at others abolished; the
system is far too complex and cumbersome at present
Perhaps a little thoughtful consolidation is in order.
Put on an island
Rework as part of a comprehensive integrated strategy
roll OCC and OTC into FDIC
same answer as 8
scrap regulatory laws
see above #8 given lack of faith in the current structure.
see above re consolidation
See question one.
self regulated
Separate into 3 functions: regulation, insurance and monetary policy. Use the proposed council to monitor
systemic risk comprised of principals of these 3 functions.
Separate but not necessarily more resources
some combined
some combined for more efficiency, but some separate for separate needs
Some combined some separate
some consolidation, but not a singular entity
SOME of these agencies should be combined, but not all. E.g., the OTS and FDIC should be combined.
Some reorganization but separation is needed--lest it become too heavy-handed, too selfimportant/perpetuating--and "too big to fail"
some should be combined
some should combined, perhaps not all
Status quo
Status quo
The Federal Reserve CAUSED the crisis. Its powers need to be reduced to the max and its privilege of
printing money needs to be revoked. Its secrecy needs to unveiled and its currently private shareholders
disclosed.
The Federal Reserve should remain independent but the other Federal agencies can be combined and
should work closely with the states to make sure state by state guidelines and enforcement are consistent.
State resources should be used to supplement Fed
The FRB must remain independent and unencumbered by the minutiae of the other agencies listed
The OTS should certainly be eliminated. Bankers have picking the taxpayers pocket for years by bulling OTS
regulators. There should be one banking regulatory for all banks including holding companies, foreign
branches and subsidiaries. This single institution
The regulators need to be combined for coordinated effect. The Fed needs to remain independent and
focus on monetary policy.
The size and influence of these regulators should be gradually reduced.
There might be areas of consolidation of responsibilities and authorities but not the agencies themselves.
There should be no national regulation of banks, get rid of FDIC, OCC, Fed and OTS
These agencies are at best ineffective and should be disbanded and not replaced.
These agencies other than the Fed should be shuttered and the best of the employees hired to work in one
agency that regulates banks. There is too much overlap and too much expense with so many agencies.
These agencies should be kept separate but sharing of information should be provided.
They should all be dismantled, especially the FDIC. Complete incompetence!
They should be consolidated as regards the large banks and bank-like entities (to be regulated by the Fed),
with a separate consolidated entity overseeing all other banks
We should go back to an earlier methind of banking where none was too big to fail. Let the States regulate
their own state chartered banks. The Comptroller should regulate the national a, regional and big banks
with stringent penalties against errant
Why give them more money for the next crisis when they couldn't manage this one?
With careful respect for federalism principles and the risk of capital flight.
you need to get rid of the OTS, they have cost the system billions of dollars with their reticence of closing
their constituents. the FDIC should remain independent, we are funded by the banks. we should continue
as insurer and have authority to examine
Who should have primary responsibility for the oversight of investor
Mentions % Sample Size
(consumer) protection? Select all that apply.
The SEC
981
54%
The Federal Trade Commission
247
13%
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
81
4%
A new, separate consumer protection agency
391
21%
Other
132
7%
Don't know/No opinion
266
15%
Sample Size
1,831
“Other” responses include:
A combined entity
A consumer protection subdivision of a single FSA-like entity.
A new agency, with competitive private sector-like salaries with compensation-linked peformance.
a new consolidated regulator
Again something that will work most current organizations haven't worked.
all t he above and the FDIC share responsibility
An entity that is not funded by the industry it is charged with monitoring. The entity must be Empowered
to take appropriate action.
an entity with non-politically appointed leadership
buyer beware
Caveat emptor
caveat emptor, the free market
CFP Board of Standards
CFTC
combined agency
Combined and hopefully leaner agency to avoid overlap and confusion
combined regulator
Committee of responsible private investment organizations from all disciplines
Consumers
consumers should be protected based on the activity they are engaging
consumers themselves should be responsible
Dept. of Education!
Does oversight include the power to require mandatory measures of correction action?
Each Consumer
Existing Structure
Expanded resources required and political will to carry out mission
FDIC
FDIC and the OCC
Federal Reserve
Federal Reserve
finra
FTC
I do not like the choices, but am stuck as to defining an alternative
I think what we learned is that many of the organization failed to do their job. I am in favor of destroying
the old organization and creating new organization. Fire everyone
If the SEC does its job in regulating the brokerage firms there is no need for an investor protection agency.
If we had a banking system that was subject to free market discipline, we wouldn't need so much
regulation
I'm not sure which, but there shouldn't be too many regulators. Just one or few efficient one(s).
In theory, all of the agencies identified in the questions above ought to view consumers as their ultimate
"customer." In practice this seems to work less than ideally. Nevertheless, I'm concerned about a separate
consumer-focused agency that possibly con
individual state agencies
individuals themselves
Investor & consumer are not synonymous. Investors need to realize they can lose money. Calling an
investor a consumer can lead to an entitlement mentality.
investor and consumer protection? Two very different things. Who came up with this survey? It's full of
bias.
investors
Investors
Investors don't need one.
Investors' own prudence.
Investors should protect themselves with the help of voluntary organizations like Morningstar.
Investors. With consistent education.
Left to free market
Me
More thought needs to go into the pros and cons of various structures. We need to evolve our regulatory
framework to match the sophistication and pace of the current market environment. Full and fair
disclosure and protection of the integrity of the fin
Multi-layered (i.e. providing education, information access, proactive communications, advocacy
New and improved SEC
new combined bank regulator
new combined financial market regulator
New SRO (see question 7).
No clue
no group should be created
No one
No one
No one. The consumer should take responsibility for his own protections.
No separate agency is required. Current agencies need to do their jobs.
nobody - stay out of the free market
Nobody.
none
none
none
None necessary
None of the above
None, let the buyer beware.
Not necessary
Not sure, but don't create any new agencies
One macro agency that encompasses banking, investment regulation
ONE NEW Regulator
perhaps if they were combined there would be no gapsy
Personal responsibility and financial literacy should be the cornerstone of any regulatory reform.
Political gimmick
President's Working Group on Financial Markets
Professional Investors do no need protection and know enough to assess and evaluate their own risk. Only
the Joe and Jane need protection by a separate consumer protection agency.
same as financial risk oversight body mentioned above
same combined agency that is overseeing banking / lending regulation
SEC for securities firms that are not part of a banking company; OCC and other primary bank regulators
for entities that are banks or affiliates of banks.
SEC should become an agency within FTC.
SEC w/enforcement
See #8
See question one.
Self-governance: personal responsibility and freedom!!!!
should align with safety and soundness regulators
Single Federal Reserve oversight
SIPC
Someone needs to rethink and reshape the SEC, add some teeth.
state attorney general
States
States only
The aforementioned new regulatory bodies and present protections are more than enough to protect
consumers.
The combined SEC,CFTC, etc.
the consumer
The Consumer
The consumer - how 'bout a little personal responsibility?
The consumer himself!
The consumer should be responsible for themselves
The consumer!!!!!
The FED
The individual consumer
The individual investor himself.
the individual investor should watch out for himself - buyer beware.
the investor
The investor
the investor
THE INVESTOR
The investor
the investor
the investor (consumer); "caveat emptor"
the investor himself
THE INVESTOR!!!! How silly is that question. Give me a break!
the investor(consumer)
The investor; caveat emptor
The investors themselves
The Invisible Hand
The market and strong fraud prosecution. Financial firms should not be bailed out which has created
moral hazard. A public audit of DTCC failed to delivers should be conducted and this massive fraud
stopped
The new combined regulatory agency.
The same regulator that oversees financial institutions
There are already too m many agencies set up for supposed consumer protection - enough already - no
more agencies needed - existing agencies need to do far better job of requiring transparency and antifraud prosecution
There should be a consumer protection agency that provides audits of investment products and on going
due-dligence. SEC does not have that mandate and is called in only by whistleblowers, and even at that
point, they do very little to audit or enforce.
There should be no consume protection oversight
This should be left to private organizations and individual investors.
Tort action in civil courts. If fraud is committed the injured party sues.
We need all agencies to enforce the regs that exist and pursue and prosecute with real diligence.
we should all be more self reliant
Whatever agency it is has to be at the top of the pecking order of regulators as this is the point of all
regulation.