All five SEC Commissioners testified yesterday at an oversight hearing held by the House Financial Services Committee, the first time all five have appeared since 2007, according to Chair Maxine Waters. (Here is their formal testimony.) These hearings are, of course, broken up into bite-size five-minute Q&A sessions, so there is not much opportunity for in-depth questioning. And most often, it seemed that the Representatives directed their questions to the Commissioners that were most likely to provide gratifying answers—meaning a Commissioner of the Representative’s own party. There were, however, some notable exceptions, such as Representative Katie Porter’s pointed questioning of Commissioner Hester Peirce with regard to her views on ESG disclosure. In the end, the hearing did provide some insight into the current thinking and expectations of many of these legislators and regulators.
(Based on my notes, so standard caveats apply.)
Chair Waters opened the hearing by making plain her view that the SEC was just not doing its job:
“I believe that it is important for this Committee to hear testimony from each of the Commissioners, including its Chairman, because they each hold a vote on important regulatory and enforcement matters, and they each hold unique views that the Committee should be aware of. This is especially important since the SEC is not fulfilling its mission as Wall Street’s cop. Key rules, like the Volcker rule, have been rolled back, while rules to implement other important reforms on issues like executive compensation—which Congress enacted back in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—remain incomplete. Other regulations, such as the SEC’s so-called Regulation Best Interest, fail to protect retirement savers from unscrupulous financial advisers.”
Notable among the opening statements was Commissioner Robert Jackson’s, which identified three areas where he believed the SEC and/or Congress needed to address regulatory gaps:
- The 8-K disclosure rules, which typically allow four days prior to disclosure, during which, he suggested, studies have shown that insiders were trading. Legislation should close that trading gap, he suggested.
- A similar problem occurs with insider sales after the announcement of stock buybacks. According to Jackson, many insider sales occur just after a buyback is announced, and company performance declines afterward.
- More transparency regarding corporate political spending. Is there a topic more fraught? In 2011, a rulemaking petition was submitted to the SEC by a committee of distinguished law professors (including Jackson), and since then has received over 1.2 million letters in support. (Here you can watch a 2013 PBS NewsHour segment in which Jackson debated the issue.) Some in Congress were so concerned that the SEC would take action on the petition that specific prohibitions were included as part of Omnibus Spending Bills. But as discussed in this PubCo post, former SEC Chair Mary Jo White was firmly against any such undertaking, contending that the SEC should not get involved in politics, and SEC Chair Jay Clayton has not really taken up the issue. Jackson argued yesterday that much of the money donated to political causes by corporations goes to intermediaries and there is no transparency regarding the ultimate recipients. Moreover, insiders’ interests may differ substantially from those of shareholders, and the shareholders deserve to have that information. (See, e.g., this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.)
In her opening remarks, Commissioner Peirce spoke of the need for the SEC to provide investor protection—to protect against fraud and to protect opportunity. She also argued for “regulatory humility”—were they words that would come back to haunt her?—in terms both of the SEC’s incomplete knowledge and the need to learn from staff, public comments and roundtables, as well as the need to review in hindsight whether the SEC was doing things right.
Chair Clayton, among other things, returned to his theme of the reduction in the number of public companies as the private markets outpace the public markets in many respects. That development has meant that most main street investors do not have access to those private investment opportunities. (See, e.g., this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) He also spoke of the SEC’s efforts to prevent fraud against teachers, service men and women and veterans.
Among the topics raised in the questioning were these:
- The potential for insider trading under Rule 10b5-1 plans, particularly in connection with some plan amendment by insiders. The Chair of the Committee, Maxine Waters, noted that she had introduced legislation (H.R. 624, the “Promoting Transparent Standards for Corporate Insiders Act”), which could require some significant tweaks to Rule 10b5-1 plans and disclosure about them. Co-sponsored by the Ranking Republican Member on the Committee, Patrick McHenry, the legislation would require the SEC to conduct a study of whether specified amendments to the rules governing 10b5-1 plans should be adopted, such as limiting the frequency of plan amendments and establishing mandatory delays between plan adoption and first trades. The SEC would need to report back within a year and then adopt rule amendments consistent with the findings of the study. (See this PubCo post.)
- Many concerns regarding cryptocurrency, both the potential associated risks and the failure by the SEC to promptly adopt a clear regulatory structure.
- The need to revisit the onerous crowdfunding rules. (Clayton agreed.)
- Recommendation that the SEC require more use of structured data format, such as inline XBRL.
- Much discussion about the SEC’s recently adopted Regulation BI and whether it had improperly weakened the fiduciary standard for brokers and advisors.
- Whether the SEC should have more oversight over FASB.
- The significance of the the Business Roundtable’s recent change in its statement of the purpose of corporations. The statement “moves away from shareholder primacy” as a guiding principle and outlines in its place a “modern standard for corporate responsibility” that makes a commitment to all stakeholders. (See this PubCo post.) In questioning, Peirce confirmed her view that the focus should remain on maximizing shareholder value and that the claims of other stakeholders were ancillary to that main purpose.
- In questioning about the LIBOR transition, Clayton confirmed that the shift to SOFR (the Secured Overnight Financing Rate) would certainly create some friction but that the SEC would seek to reduce those frictions where possible. You may recall that the SEC staff recently published a Statement that “encourages market participants to proactively manage their transition away from LIBOR.” The Statement reminds readers that the “discontinuation of LIBOR could have a significant impact on the financial markets and may present a material risk for certain market participants, including public companies, investment advisers, investment companies, and broker-dealers. The risks associated with this discontinuation and transition will be exacerbated if the work necessary to effect an orderly transition to an alternative reference rate is not completed in a timely manner.” (See this PubCo post.)
- The impact of the new accounting standard for CECL, Current Expected Credit Losses.
- Concerns regarding cybersecurity, especially in connection with the new proposal for the Consolidated Audit Trail.
- The absence of a statute directed at prohibiting insider trading, an issue that is currently being considered by some of the Representatives. In response to questioning, Clayton advised that he would not want to lose the learning that has developed out of caselaw and, therefore, did not favor exclusivity.
- The use of mandatory shareholder arbitration provisions. In response to the question as to whether there was a benefit to enforcement of the securities laws by individuals in private litigation, Jackson agreed that it served as a valuable deterrent that would likely not result from undisclosed arbitration, and that, as a result of private litigation, there had been substantial return to investors for losses incurred.
- Next steps for requiring transparency and accountability from proxy advisory firms.
- Increasing analyst coverage and trading liquidity for smaller public companies. Clayton agreed that thin trading and resulting volatility were deterrents for many companies to going public and that companies were looking for ways to grow their companies while maintaining control of their visions.
- The misuse of opportunity zones (referring to NYT reporting), to which Clayton expressed his desire to allow residents of those zones to participate in the opportunities.
- Shareholder proposal submission and resubmission thresholds, which the SEC is reportedly considering raising. A Representative requested that the thresholds not be raised because, in her view, that change would eliminate the ability of many smaller holders, and particularly charitable and social organizations, to submit important proposals. In response, Clayton said that his focus was more on the resubmission thresholds. With regard to the submission thresholds, he favored allowing shareholders to submit proposals if they were long-term holders that had a meaningful stake in the company at a personal level. He seemed to object to the handful of holders that submit most of the proposals each year.
- The continuing debate over the need for mandatory standardized ESG disclosure. Some of the Representatives questioned whether companies were properly evaluating and disclosing risks regard climate change. Jackson contended that, in his view, it was best to quantify ESG matters and disclose them. He observed that it is really up to shareholders to determine what is material, and they are asking for ESG disclosures, including, in many cases, more standardized reporting. Another Representative countered that shareholders are not asking for ESG disclosure, as evidence by the large proportion of failures among shareholder proposals for ESG disclosure. Clayton observed that, as he has in the past, with regard to standardized ESG metrics, materiality is the touchstone for the SEC and that, for ESG, he favors principles-based, not standardized, disclosure. (See this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) For example, Clayton noted that, if corporate political spending were material for a company, it should be disclosed.
- Representative Porter took on Peirce for her past (arguably snarky) statement at a meeting of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee that, in her view, “ESG” stood for “enabling shareholder graft.” (See this PubCo post.) She also questioned Peirce’s recent speech, “Scarlet Letters,” in which Peirce rebuked the practice of “public shaming” of companies that did not adequately satisfy ESG standards. According to Peirce, in today’s “modern, but no less flawed world,” there is “labeling based on incomplete information, public shaming, and shunning wrapped in moral rhetoric preached with cold-hearted, self-righteous oblivion to the consequences, which ultimately fall on real people. In our purportedly enlightened era, we pin scarlet letters on allegedly offending corporations without bothering much about facts and circumstances and seemingly without caring about the unwarranted harm such labeling can engender. After all, naming and shaming corporate villains is fun, trendy, and profitable.” (See this PubCo post.) Porter asked other Commissioners whether they shared the view that proponents of ESG were shrill and self-righteous? She also questioned whether the SEC’s ignoring of the request by 1.2 million for political spending disclosure reflected “regulatory humility,” which Peirce had espoused in her opening statement? If executive pay required disclosure because, at some level, it was the product of a conflict of interest, couldn’t the same be said for political spending?