Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:40 pm ... ummer-csa/


Screen Shot 2021-02-22 at 6.32.47 PM.png

SROs to hear their fate this summer: CSA

Regulators are weighing options for the future of the self-regulatory framework

By: James Langton February 22, 2021 12:05
rules and regulations

The future of self-regulation will be given a direction this summer, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) said on Monday.

In June 2020 the CSA launched a consultation on reforming the framework for self-regulatory organizations (SROs), attracting a slew of input — including competing visions from the SROs themselves.

The CSA said Monday that it’s “on track” to release “specific recommendations this summer” in a position paper that will “shape the future of this regulatory framework.”

The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) has long advocated for a merger with the other dealer SRO, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA). Last year IIROC released a paper that called for a merger while leaving broader SRO reform for consideration further down the road.

The MFDA proposed its own vision for restructuring the framework, which would feature a new SRO to oversee all registered firms while market regulation would be hived off to the provincial regulators.

Earlier this year, an Ontario task force included its own recommendations for SRO reform in a sweeping series of proposals for overhauling both the content and structure of securities regulation.

The CSA received 67 submissions to its initial consultation, which closed in October, and has been reviewing the comments.

The regulators reported that they’ve also met with specific commenters “to clarify issues raised and information provided,” and “requested and received additional data from IIROC, the MFDA and the Canadian Investor Protection Fund.”

“The CSA continues to consider other data and analysis, including but not limited to dozens of academic publications pertaining to SRO design, operations and best practices, and their applicability to the Canadian capital markets,” it said.

The proposal for SRO reform from the CSA would go out for public comment again in the summer — giving the industry, the SROs, investors and others another chance to help shape the future of self-regulation.

“The CSA is keenly aware that the culmination of its work on the regulatory framework will have significant and long-lasting impacts on investors, market participants and the Canadian capital markets,” said Louis Morisset, chair of the CSA and president and CEO of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), in a statement.

“We are weighing and validating the issues, and considering various options for an enhanced framework that protects the public interest while ensuring fair and efficient capital markets,” he added.

(Advocate comment: The regulators are going to decide the future function and role of the regulators....) The absurdity and the clear public danger of letting foxes decide upon their own role as guardians of the henhouse is seen in the state of society today and written about in the 2020 book “Farming Humans”. It is the story of social and economic enslavement of humans, though the clever use of the foxes who we trust to guard and protect us.)

PNG last man cover image #5.png
Site Admin
Posts: 3048
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:36 pm ... criticism/
Proposals to revamp OSC draw criticism

Screen Shot 2020-11-23 at 1.34.18 PM.png

OSC could see split roles for chair & CEO

By: James Langton
Source : Investment Executive November 23, 2020 00:13

When the Ontario government’s Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce makes its final recommendations next month, it will propose sweeping changes to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC).

Walied Soliman, chair of the task force and also chair of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, spelled out the task force’s plans at the OSC’s annual policy conference in early November. He confirmed that the task force’s final report will recommend fundamental changes to the OSC.

The task force will propose separating the OSC’s adjudicative function, rejigging the regulator’s governance and revising its mandate to include the goals of promoting innovation and competition alongside traditional objectives of ensuring investor protection and fair and efficient markets.

During the consultation phase of the task force’s work, the proposal to change the OSC’s mandate to include fostering capital formation and competitive markets was met with criticism. There were concerns that such a mandate would create new conflicts within the OSC at the expense of investor protection, which could undermine the ultimate goal of championing economic growth.

Maureen Jensen, the OSC’s most recent ex-chair and ex-CEO, attended the policy meeting. She questioned the wisdom of revising the regulator’s mandate:
“My concern is that it’s very difficult to be a regulator on one hand and to be a partner in fostering new kinds of ideas and companies at the same time.”

Jensen noted that under the OSC’s existing mandate, the regulator already is expected to consider the possible effects of its rule-making on competition and to encourage innovation as part of fostering fair and efficient markets. She said she worries that amending securities legislation to require the regulator to become a partner in industry innovation would go too far.

In particular, Jensen suggested that
playing the role of market booster and enforcer at the same time could be tricky

“What happens when you begin fostering certain kinds of start­ups or funds, for example, and then something happens, and you have to be the regulator of those funds? You’re really, truly not independent,” Jensen said.

The risk of tilting the balance between investor protection and market efficiency too sharply in favour of promoting growth was raised by the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance (CCGG) during the consultation on the task force’s initial recommendations.

The CCGG’s letter warned that relaxing requirements to make raising capital easier for issuers in the short term could backfire if those same companies fail, taking investors’ money with them and ultimately denting economic growth. The CCGG’s letter pointed to the 2008-09 global financial crisis as an example of this sort of folly and warned against pushing the OSC too heavily toward promoting issuers’ interests.

Not all former chairs of the OSC were against expanding the regulator’s mandate. Howard Wetston (chair and CEO from 2010 to 2015), for example, is less bothered by the idea. Given that the OSC already plays a role in fostering competition, he argued during the conference that there’s nothing wrong with being more transparent.

Wetston said a legislative amendment to ensure that the OSC considers competition when making policy would be “a very significant thing to do because I think it will be a way of advancing our markets, growing our markets [and] growing our economy.”

Soliman told the conference that regulators in the U.K. and Australia, for example, already have pro-growth mandates. He said these mandates allow them to “reduce systemic barriers to growth, including fees and anti-competitive behaviour.”

Alongside a revised OSC mandate, Soliman said, the task force’s final report also will propose separating the OSC’s tribunal from its regulatory function, while also separating the OSC’s chair and CEO roles.

“We envisage, in short order, a capital markets authority with an oversight and governance board, an independent chair, and a CEO with executive and regulatory responsibility for the OSC. We envisage a separate adjudicative body of administrative experts,” Soliman said.

The same thing was proposed in 2004, following a review by Justice Coulter Osborne. In fact, the same model is proposed for the Cooperative Capital Markets Regulatory System (CCMR) — if and when that effort gets off the ground.

While there’s not much optimism about the CCMR coming to fruition — at least, in the short term — Soliman said that the task force’s final recommendations won’t impede the creation of the CCMR.

“In fact, we are excited at the prospect of additional recommendations that we feel will set the stage much better for a future national regulator,” Soliman said.

In the meantime, David Brown, who was chair and CEO from 1998 to 2005, said he’s concerned about how such a separation could affect the OSC’s standing with the courts and, ultimately, the OSC’s ability to regulate.

Currently, securities regulators are accorded a lot of deference from the courts because the former are seen as experts, Brown said, adding that he worries that separating adjudication could erode this expert status — and thus judicial deference. That erosion could leave the OSC open to more second-guessing of its decisions in court, inviting more litigation and ultimately complicating enforcement, Brown said.

“I think keeping the tribunal as part of the [OSC] is very much a part of the structure. I think it’s working, and I think it would be a mistake to separate it out,” Brown said.

Veteran securities lawyer Phil Anisman has long advocated against separating the OSC’s tribunal from other components of the regulator’s mandate. In his submission to the task force, Anisman argued that there’s a significant benefit to housing policy-making and adjudication within the same agency.

When the OSC’s commissioners are involved in developing regulatory policy, they have a better understanding of the purpose of the rules, Anisman noted. This policy knowledge can help inform the OSC’s efforts to protect the public interest in their rulings, he suggested. At the same time, Anisman’s letter suggests, the OSC’s experience hearing cases can also help shape policy-making: “The benefits of this cross-fertilization have long been recognized.”

Back in 2004, the Osborne committee heard many of the same arguments and ultimately recommended that the OSC’s adjudicative function be separated. In making that recommendation, the committee cited concerns about the perception of bias that comes from an integrated tribunal. The government at the time accepted the recommendation, but never acted on it.

Time will tell if today’s government is prepared to follow through on the task force’s recommendations.
Site Admin
Posts: 3048
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:09 am

Image 11-25-17 at 10.39 AM.jpg

I was pondering the puzzle of the ‘public deception game’ played by the OSC in their latest “get Smarter about money” video. The one where they tell people to check their registration and yet fail to reveal the hidden tricks involved…(tricks like finding out HOW a person is registered (are they a doctor or a nurse, for example) is far more important than telling people to check IF registered whilst not telling them what they are registered as)

To my mind it is the epitome of ‘unskilled’ regulatory behavior and perhaps indicative of a captured, handmaid regulator.

I find it a challenge to “spot” the flaw, understand it, and be able to turn it from a negative into a positive, and by positive I mean, “how can we use their “design flaws” to improve Canadians lives, financially?”

I really like this last video where they waste 1 min and 49 seconds of anyones time, whilst providing nothing but protection for themselves and for the industry, while doing harm (deception) to Canadians.

Below are three or four proposed messages that I began drafting, in order to try and whittle the issue down, shorter and more concise each time, until it is something that the average Joe public, or member of parliament would look at and “get it” instantly.

It is a 'Rick Mercer rant' kind of an opportunity Deb, and I would like to know if you have any thoughts on how to make it cut through all the industry bullshit…here the drafts I wrote so far:

#1 PONDER THIS PUZZLE…..1 min 49 seconds of your life that you will NEVER get back...but if you take the time to view it, you might discover what paying millions and millions of dollars to securities regulators will buy you. Regulator capture when the #Ontario #Government is actually #hiding the true license/registration behind a facade of being registered…YES they are registered… salespersons (the hidden part) ... ou-invest/

#2 Handmaids Tale…
In a game of cat and mouse, the #OSC Ontario Securities Commission and 12 others in Canada play their handmaid role well. Endlessly telling the public to check the registration of the 120,000 “advisors” in Canada…while hiding from them the true registration category of so called “advisors”…hmm. #FINRA plays same cat and mouse game to farm 100 million #Americans ... ou-invest/

#3 The irony of the #OSC “GET SMARTER ABOUT MONEY” campaign is how they work against the public being able to get smarter about money…they hide the exact registration category of tens of thousands of so called “advisors” so #investors won’t know they dealing with commission salespersons…handmaidens, hand paid and hand picked by banks ... ou-invest/

#4 Imagine living in a world where government regulators are paid to pretend to protect you, while wasting your time and your money by hiding from you the most essential lies that harm you. This 2 minute #OSC video well illustrates the concept of regulators as industry handmaidens. Telling #investors to check their advisors registration whilst hiding the facts and the actual registration itself. Millions of dollars are paid to this regulator, and yet the joke is on #investors… ... ou-invest/
Site Admin
Posts: 3048
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest