With just over a month to go in the term of Chair Gensler, it is disappointing that the Democratic majority continues to push the adoption of new regulatory requirements over the dissents of the two Republican Commissioners (who will soon be in the majority). There is no great political victory here; no historic "achievement" to be touted. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow the incoming majority to pursue a rule change that incorporates their concerns? This just seems ungracious. …

This is a case worth reading.  

Leaving aside the specific disclosure that was at issue—a very important aspect of the decision that could have relevance to other rules recently adopted by the SEC—a majority of the Court rejected the view that securities regulators could "require disclosure for disclosure's sake." That is, the majority held that a disclosure requirement could not be imposed unless the SEC can "establish the rule has some connectional to an actual, enumerated…

How to deal with the mandate to clear treasury securities may be the incoming SEC's most immediate challenge. They will have to decide quickly how to move forward.

It is not obvious that the mandate provides any meaningful benefit, other than an accounting benefit that is not based on any reduction in actual credit risk. It is clear, however, that the mandate will raise costs and create operational difficulties—a fairly big negative as the US Government's debt grows. While the…

The FSOC report seems like a good idea in theory: it is intended to reflect the collective wisdom of numerous federal financial regulators (plus a state insurance regulator), synthesizing the results of their concerns in diverse areas. In practice, the report is just a political document that reflects the message that the various regulatory agencies want to communicate. Nobody is the wiser for reading that cybersecurity or the downturn in real estate values are financial risks. Climate risk…