Securities Law

Print
Article
Volume 92.3
Noisy Factors in Law
Adriana Z. Robertson
Donald N. Pritzker Professor of Business Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

We thank Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Ryan Bubb, Ed Cheng, Quinn Curtis, Elisabeth de Fontenay, Jared Ellias, Jill Fisch, Joe Grundfest, Cam Harvey, Scott Hirst, Colleen Honigsberg, Marcel Kahan, Louis Kaplow, Jonathan Klick, Brian Leiter, Saul Levmore, Dorothy Lund, John Morley, Mariana Pargendler, Elizabeth Pollman, Roberta Romano, Paolo Saguato, Holger Spamann, George Vojta, and Michael Weber for valuable suggestions and discussions. This Article has benefited from comments by workshop participants at Columbia Law School, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, UC Berkeley School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, the University of Oxford Faculty of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the Washington University School of Law, as well as at the American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting, the Corporate & Securities Litigation Workshop, the Labex ReFi-NYU-SAFE/LawFin Law & Banking/Finance Conference, and the Utah Winter Deals Conference. Robertson gratefully acknowledges the support of the Douglas Clark and Ruth Ann McNeese Faculty Research Fund. Katy Beeson and Levi Haas provided exceptional research assistance. All errors are our own.

Pat Akey
Associate Professor of Finance, University of Toronto; Visiting Professor, INSEAD.

We thank Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Ryan Bubb, Ed Cheng, Quinn Curtis, Elisabeth de Fontenay, Jared Ellias, Jill Fisch, Joe Grundfest, Cam Harvey, Scott Hirst, Colleen Honigsberg, Marcel Kahan, Louis Kaplow, Jonathan Klick, Brian Leiter, Saul Levmore, Dorothy Lund, John Morley, Mariana Pargendler, Elizabeth Pollman, Roberta Romano, Paolo Saguato, Holger Spamann, George Vojta, and Michael Weber for valuable suggestions and discussions. This Article has benefited from comments by workshop participants at Columbia Law School, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, UC Berkeley School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, the University of Oxford Faculty of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the Washington University School of Law, as well as at the American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting, the Corporate & Securities Litigation Workshop, the Labex ReFi-NYU-SAFE/LawFin Law & Banking/Finance Conference, and the Utah Winter Deals Conference. Robertson gratefully acknowledges the support of the Douglas Clark and Ruth Ann McNeese Faculty Research Fund. Katy Beeson and Levi Haas provided exceptional research assistance. All errors are our own.

Mikhail Simutin
Professor of Finance, University of Toronto.

We thank Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Ryan Bubb, Ed Cheng, Quinn Curtis, Elisabeth de Fontenay, Jared Ellias, Jill Fisch, Joe Grundfest, Cam Harvey, Scott Hirst, Colleen Honigsberg, Marcel Kahan, Louis Kaplow, Jonathan Klick, Brian Leiter, Saul Levmore, Dorothy Lund, John Morley, Mariana Pargendler, Elizabeth Pollman, Roberta Romano, Paolo Saguato, Holger Spamann, George Vojta, and Michael Weber for valuable suggestions and discussions. This Article has benefited from comments by workshop participants at Columbia Law School, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, UC Berkeley School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, the University of Oxford Faculty of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the Washington University School of Law, as well as at the American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting, the Corporate & Securities Litigation Workshop, the Labex ReFi-NYU-SAFE/LawFin Law & Banking/Finance Conference, and the Utah Winter Deals Conference. Robertson gratefully acknowledges the support of the Douglas Clark and Ruth Ann McNeese Faculty Research Fund. Katy Beeson and Levi Haas provided exceptional research assistance. All errors are our own.

For years, academic experts have championed the widespread adoption of the “Fama-French” factors in legal settings. Factor models are commonly used to perform valuations, performance evaluation and event studies across a wide variety of contexts, many of which rely on data provided by Professor Kenneth French. Yet these data are beset by a problem that the experts themselves did not understand: In a companion article, we document widespread retroactive changes to French’s factor data. These changes are the result of discretionary changes to the construction of the factors and materially affect a broad range of estimates. In this Article, we show how these retroactive changes can have enormous impacts in precisely the settings in which experts have pressed for their use. We provide examples of valuations, performance analysis, and event studies in which the retroactive changes have a large—and even dispositive—effect on an expert’s conclusions.

Bankruptcy Corporations Law and Economics Securities Law
Print
Essay
Volume 92.2
Central Clearing the U.S. Treasury Market
Yesha Yadav
Milton R. Underwood Chair, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School.

We benefited greatly from thoughtful comments and conversations in the preparation of this Essay. The authors are enormously grateful to Dan Awrey, David Bowman, Jonathan Brogaard, Adam Copeland, Darrell Duffie, Ellen Correia Golay, Frank Keane, Kate Judge, Megha Kalbag, Mike Koslow, Dina Marchioni, Rebecca McCaughrin, Saule Omarova, Julie Remache, Morgan Ricks, Will Riordan, Pradeep Yadav and participants at the University of Chicago Law Review’s Symposium on Financial Regulation in the Crucible: Private and Public Law Perspectives on a Sector in Crisis. We are also most appreciative of the extraordinarily talented editors and staff at the University of Chicago Law Review for their careful edits, commentary and patience. The views expressed by the authors are their own and may not reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System.

Joshua Younger
Policy Advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School.

We benefited greatly from thoughtful comments and conversations in the preparation of this Essay. The authors are enormously grateful to Dan Awrey, David Bowman, Jonathan Brogaard, Adam Copeland, Darrell Duffie, Ellen Correia Golay, Frank Keane, Kate Judge, Megha Kalbag, Mike Koslow, Dina Marchioni, Rebecca McCaughrin, Saule Omarova, Julie Remache, Morgan Ricks, Will Riordan, Pradeep Yadav and participants at the University of Chicago Law Review’s Symposium on Financial Regulation in the Crucible: Private and Public Law Perspectives on a Sector in Crisis. We are also most appreciative of the extraordinarily talented editors and staff at the University of Chicago Law Review for their careful edits, commentary and patience. The views expressed by the authors are their own and may not reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System.

The market for Treasury securities, a deep and liquid market for risk-free debt, has anchored an ambitious and creative U.S. dollar economy while also ensuring the safety and soundness of its financial and monetary system. But as the market has grown, a series of disruptions to Treasury market trading have prompted policymakers to explore measures to strengthen the market’s foundations and shore up its resilience. This Essay considers this regulatory response. It focuses on the introduction of mandatory central clearing for most trades in U.S. Treasuries—a proposal seeking to significantly reshape the day-to-day functioning of the Treasury market. Central clearing is a well-established means by which to reduce the risk of loss associated when trading parties default. We analyze this mandate, detailing its likely advantages as well as its potential trade-offs from a public policy perspective.

Print
Essay
Volume 92.2
Securities Regulation and Administrative Law in the Roberts Court
David Zaring
Elizabeth F. Putzel Professor, The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Thanks to Vincent Buccola, Christine Chabot, Haiyun Damon-Feng, Donna Nagy, Christina Skinner, Chris Walker, and for comments at presentations at the University of Chicago, the 2024 ABA Administrative Law Section Spring Meeting, and the 2024 National Business Law Scholars Conference. Thanks also to Rachel Shoemaker and Elizabeth Weise for research assistance.

This Essay compares a judicial revolution that is happening to one that is not. Both the change and the status quo are being managed by the current Supreme Court. That Court has, when it comes to administrative law, shown a capacity to revisit everything. But when it comes to securities regulation, it has resisted change. What is the explanation for this divergent approach between general regulation, which the Court has sought to police, and securities regulation, which the Court has left alone? Some scholars have argued that the Supreme Court is simply uninterested in securities regulation, but the Court now hears proportionately more securities cases than it once did. Others dispute the premise that the Court supports corporate America. And, of course, the Roberts Court could change its approach to securities regulation in time. But I think the divergence suggests that the Court wants to police public rights and rights against the state but is less interested in reformulating the standards for private disputes, such as disputes between shareholders and managers.

Online
Essay
How Artificial Intelligence Will Shape Securities Regulation
Gabriel V. Rauterberg
Professor of Law, University of Michigan

My views on these subjects owe much to my collaborators, especially Michael Barr, Megan Shearer, and Michael Wellman, with whom I have been studying the behavior of algorithmic traders in financial markets, and Howell Jackson, with whom I have been presenting on social media and capital markets at PIFS-IOSCO’s trainings for securities regulators. All errors are my own. Thanks to the participants at the University of Chicago’s Symposium on “How AI Will Change the Law” for helpful comments, and to the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful insights.

This Essay argues that the increasing prevalence and sophistication of artificial intelligence (AI) will push securities regulation toward a more systems-oriented approach. This approach will replace securities law’s emphasis, in areas like manipulation, on forms of enforcement targeted at specific individuals and accompanied by punitive sanctions with a greater focus on ex ante rules designed to shape an ecology of actors and information.

Machine Learning Regulation Securities Securities Law
Online
Essay
Agency Problems and the Misappropriation Theory of Insider Trading in SEC v. Panuwat
Ryan Fane
Ryan Fane is a J.D. candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2023.

He thanks the members of the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback and suggestions.

This case raises some difficult theoretical questions about what harms insider trading laws are supposed to prevent and what benefits they are supposed to provide to the marketplace.

Print
Article
85.6
A New Market-Based Approach to Securities Law
Kevin S. Haeberle
Associate Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School
M. Todd Henderson
Michael J. Marks Professor of Law and Mark Claster Mamolen Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School

Many scholars have proposed market-based solutions to the well-known shortcomings of modern securities law.

Volumes