One of the biggest impediments to a fresh examination of existing rules is the political danger to any regulator of being seen as loosening a rule in any way, lest they be construed as capitulating to the financial industry. In a rational world, rules would be subject to continuous reexamination. But the broader question is whether reexamination means making a genuine assessment (perhaps resulting in the retraction of a rule that is no longer working) or continually adding new requirements.…

The SEC may want to consider this approach to disclosure: (i) make various social disclosures (e.g., compensation ratios and political contributions) optional, but (ii) require issuers to allow proxy voting periodically on the topics. If proponents of these disclosures are correct in asserting that shareholders want them, too, then the shareholders will support them. If the critics are correct, then shareholders will reject them. Such an approach would be consistent with Commissioner Piwowar…

If all of the swap dealers that are registered currently do a significant amount of business that goes beyond the threshold, then lowering the threshold for dealer registration likely will result in more firms dropping out of the market than deciding to register. In this economic/political climate, very few firms are willing to take on materially greater regulatory burdens in order to do small volumes of business.

Significant rulemaking in this area was inevitable, since meaningful disciplinary actions had been brought against a number of ATSs for failing to operate their systems fairly or protect the confidentiality of their subscribers. That's why it was good to see the SEC produce a rule that reflects a consensus view and that is based, as Commissioner Piwowar pointed out, on concepts of disclosure rather than narrowly defined requirements or broad prohibitions.

Those who are interested in…