Summary
We believe that financial markets are best regulated through:
- Strong and transparent disclosure requirements
- Compensation structures that align incentives with long-term performance
- Reducing conflicts of interest within financial institutions and market intermediaries
- Limiting the risks associated with institutions that are considered “too big to fail”
We support policies that:
- Require senior executives at large financial institutions to have compensation subject to meaningful clawback provisions
- Discourage excessive concentration in financial institutions through regulatory oversight and, where appropriate, taxation linked to size and financial risk
- Address conflicts of interest in credit rating and financial intermediation
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
Background
Financial Stability and Market Discipline
Financial markets periodically experience episodes of instability driven by a combination of excessive risk-taking, misaligned incentives, and incomplete information. These episodes are difficult to predict and even more difficult to manage once they occur.
While government intervention may be necessary in extreme circumstances to stabilize the financial system, such interventions create a long-term challenge: if market participants expect to be protected from failure, they may take on greater risk than they otherwise would.
This dynamic highlights the importance of regulatory structures that reinforce market discipline before crises occur.
Disclosure
One of the most important elements of a well-functioning financial system is transparency.
During periods of financial stress, uncertainty about the exposure of individual institutions can lead to a loss of confidence across the entire system. When market participants cannot distinguish between strong and weak institutions, risk aversion can spread rapidly.
We support disclosure requirements that provide timely and meaningful information about the financial condition and risk exposure of major institutions. Improved transparency can help markets function more efficiently and reduce the likelihood of system-wide loss of confidence.
Incentives
Compensation structures within financial institutions play a central role in shaping behavior.
When compensation is tied primarily to short-term performance, it can encourage excessive risk-taking without adequate consideration of long-term consequences.
We support compensation systems that align incentives with long-term outcomes. In particular, large institutions that may pose systemic risks should incorporate meaningful clawback provisions, ensuring that executives share in the consequences of decisions that prove harmful over time.
These measures are not intended to regulate the absolute level of compensation, but to ensure that incentives are consistent with responsible risk management and the long-term interests of shareholders and the broader economy.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest can undermine the integrity of financial markets.
In particular, situations in which firms are compensated by the entities they evaluate or audit can create incentives to provide overly favorable assessments. This issue has arisen in multiple contexts, including credit rating agencies and external auditors, where the credibility of evaluations is critical to market confidence.
We support efforts to reduce or better align these incentives. Possible approaches include requiring firms to retain a meaningful financial stake in the instruments they evaluate or structure, strengthening independence requirements, or reconsidering regulatory frameworks that rely heavily on third-party assessments that may be subject to such conflicts.
The goal should be to ensure that those providing evaluations or certifications have incentives aligned with long-term performance, accuracy, and the interests of investors and the broader economy.
Limiting “Too Big to Fail”
The existence of institutions that are perceived as “too big to fail” creates a fundamental challenge for financial markets.
If failure is not a credible outcome, market discipline is weakened, and risk-taking may increase. At the same time, the failure of a large institution can pose significant risks to the broader financial system.
We support policies that reduce this tension by:
- Limiting excessive concentration through oversight of mergers and market structure
- Encouraging higher levels of financial reserves in large institutions
- Considering mechanisms, including size- or risk-based taxation, that create incentives for institutions to reduce systemic risk
Institutions should be able to avoid these costs by either strengthening their financial position or reducing their scale.
Competition and Market Structure
Competitive markets are essential to the efficient functioning of the financial system.
In both commercial and investment banking, market concentration can reduce competition and increase costs for businesses and investors. We support policies that encourage competition and limit anti-competitive behavior, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for financial stability.
Historical Context and Lessons
Debates over financial regulation are often shaped by interpretations of past events.
For example, there is ongoing disagreement about the role of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in contributing to financial instability. While some view it as a central factor, we believe its impact is often overstated. The repeal was intended to increase competition and efficiency by allowing financial institutions to operate across traditional lines of business, and in many respects achieved those objectives. More broadly, the causes of financial instability are better understood in terms of incentives, lending standards, and monetary policy than in terms of institutional structure alone.
Similarly, government interventions such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program illustrate the complexity of crisis response. While such interventions may be necessary to stabilize financial markets, they also reinforce the importance of regulatory frameworks that reduce the likelihood of future bailouts.
By contrast, interventions directed at specific firms or industries—particularly those that primarily benefit identifiable stakeholders such as shareholders, creditors, or organized labor—raise different concerns. These actions are less about stabilizing the broader economic system and more about redistributing losses, and they should be approached with greater caution.
These examples underscore the importance of focusing on incentives, transparency, and market structure rather than relying on ad hoc, one-off interventions.
Go to Part 2) Regulation and Consumer Protection
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.