|Who Watches the Watchers?|
|Topic||Market Failure, Regulation and Public Choice|
|Subject||conflicts of interest in financial services arbitration panels|
|Key Words||arbitration, bias, conflict of interest, financial services, screening, monitoring.|
|News Story||Rather than go through protracted and expensive court cases, The National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) prefers to arbitrate disputes between securities dealers and their clients because arbitration is a low-cost, fast way of resolving disputes relative to taking cases to court. Under arbitration, both parties in a dispute argue their case to a three-person panel, and agree to submit to the panel's decision of the panel. The problem? Securities dealers won client-broker disputes 57% of the time in 2005, compared to only 46% of the time in 2001.
The fast arbitration system worked very well initially. Last year, for example, the resolution time for a dispute was 14 months, down from15 the year before. It is becoming increasingly costly and complex, though, to identify the problems in the system.
Opponents of the arbitration system argue that the problem stems from a lack of any clear screening and monitoring mechanism of the individuals who make up arbitration panels. Of the three members, one can be an "industry arbitrators," drawn from those who have ties to the securities industry. The other two must be "public arbitrators," without ties to the securities industry. In the wake of recent mergers across the financial services industry, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who have no ties to the securities and financial services industries; that is, people without conflicts of interest.
For example, one individual identified by the Public Investor Arbitration Bar Association was listed as a "public arbitrator" by the NASD, but had previously owned a securities firm, making him more likely to be an "industry arbitrator." Other individuals who sit on arbitration panels must have some familiarity with financial issues, so while potential conflicts may be more difficult to identify, familiarity with the issues also means sharing similar conflicts. For example, arbitration lawyers may be employed at firms that have affected securities firms (or individuals) as clients.
The NASD Dispute Resolution, a firm created to handle arbitrations, argues that it expects arbitrators to be forthcoming about potential conflicts of interest. But no mechanism in place checks the accuracy of the arbitrators' profiles. Further, it may be difficult for potential arbitrators to identify every potential conflict, especially as the financial services industry becomes more complex. Finally, it may be in the arbitrator's best interests to try to hide potential conflicts. So how is the small investor going to get a fair shake?
|Source||Morgenson, Gretchen. "Is This Game Already Over?" The New York Times. June 18, 2006.|
|Instructor Discussion Notes|| Discussion
These notes are restricted to qualified instructors only. Register for free!
Return to the Market Failure, Regulation and Public Choice Index
©1998-2006 South-Western. All Rights Reserved webmaster | DISCLAIMER