![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
Spitzer calls for greater institutional investor involvement
New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, widely known on Wall Street for having led recent legal attacks on conflicts of interest between underwriting and stock analysis at investment banks, told attendees of the PRMIA 2003 summit today that institutional investors would have “re-engage” and “exercise voice” as shareholders to improve corporate governance revealed as flawed during 2001 and 2002’s corporate scandals.
Spitzer said recent statistics showed that the holding periods of individual stocks by large shareholders had fallen and suggested that active trading was not helping to close the gap between stockholders’ interests and those of the figure of the “imperial CEO” who arose in the late 1990s. Spitzer added that tax incentives to encourage longer equity holding periods could help address the issue, and later said that legal reform in the US to allow institutional investors to sit on corporate boards could also help.
Spitzer described the 1990s as a period in which regulators and other corporate observers like corporate boards, accountants and institutional investors had ‘defined deviancy down’, or allowed small infractions to go unaccounted for, thereby making it more like likely that larger infractions would follow. “Just as one barnacle suddenly aggregates into 100 or a thousand, making the boat un-seaworthy, so one off-balance-sheet partnership at Enron…became 5, 10, 1000 and suddenly the entire ship foundered,” he said.
Spitzer said that the US corporate reform law Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires ceo’s at US public companies to legally attest the accuracy of their companies’ financial statements, may have desirable effects, though it was in some respects too early to tell.
Asked by an audience member whether criminal punishment would have been a stronger deterrent to investment banks against engaging in deceptive practices in the future, Spitzer replied the answer wouldn’t be known for five or ten years. He said that he and other regulators had chosen not to criminally indict banks after uncovering evidence of conflicts of interest because the damage to the financial system would have been too great.
Spitzer did, however, offer a warning: “I told them [investment banks] very clearly that the sword of Damocles will fall next time on whatever inhibitions I had about simply bringing the indictments that we could have brought that would have led to people being in prison.”
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
The standoff over separate account margining
CFTC issues sixth extension of no-action relief as long-awaited final rule stalls
Banks fret over vendor contracts as Dora deadline looms
Thousands of vendor contracts will need repapering to comply with EU’s new digital resilience rules
EU banks lose relief on model test after FRTB delay
Deferment of new trading book regime to January 2025 eats into transition period for “erratic” P&L attribution test
Sunday night football and the Basel III endgame
Big banks, political advocates and housing organisations are unlikely allies in race to dropkick new capital regime
Futures exchanges seek clarity on China licensing regime
Hazy details on landmark Futures and Derivatives Law breeds legal uncertainty, unnerving operators
Some EU banks wanted option to start FRTB on time
Representatives of member states raised possibility with European Commission at July meeting discussing the delay
For US Treasury troubles, treat the cause not the symptom
Regulatory alarm about hidden risk in the Treasury futures market misses the point, fund association execs write
Iosco delays pre-hedging consultation to November
Review into controversial practice splits industry