On a substantive basis, this rule proposal may be seen as a non-event. Broker-dealers must adhere to the rules of both the SEC and FINRA. Where the two regulators have adopted requirements as to the same topic; e.g., suitability, and the SEC's rules are tougher, the FINRA rules are effectively irrelevant. This FINRA rule proposal simply recognizes that legal reality, and is thus of no real substantive effect.

From a process standpoint, however, this rule proposal raises a more…

The dissent of Commissioner Lee reflects her ongoing philosophical disagreement with the views of the current majority of the Commissioners. That said, it is not so obvious that "investors" generally are opposed to the amendment, as she argues. From the , there were very few from the buy-side, beyond the one letter from the Council of Institutional Investors. Two of the other letters cited by Commissioner Lee (see footnote 1 of her remarks) were from non-profits, including one from Better…

There can be operational efficiency without regulatory clarity and consistency, and deference to home country regulators. That is, imposing different regulations on the same activity, and subjecting the same regulated entity to multiple regulators, is a principal cause of operational inefficiency. While this is most obvious as to cross-border activities, it is also the case in the United States where, for example, a single market intermediary will be subject to the credit regulations of both…

There are a number of areas where there appear to be sharp philosophical divides among the SEC Commissioners: environmental, social and governance ("ESG") disclosure and the regulation of proxy advisors being two of them. See, e.g., . There may not be a middle ground on some of these issues.